Skip to content


Gauranga Sundar Mandal Vs. Satish Chandra Chowdhuri - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in46Ind.Cas.39
AppellantGauranga Sundar Mandal
RespondentSatish Chandra Chowdhuri
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 179, 181(2) and 182 - criminal misappropriation of rents realised in one district, charge of, whether can be tried in another district--jurisdiction. - .....fit. it appears that the head cutchery of the zemindars, of whom the accused is a servant, is at burdwan. the accused was sometime in 1322 stationed at jiagange cutchery in the murshidabad district as a gomasta in charge of the zemindar's estates there. he is now charged with criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of rs. 89. it is not expressly mentioned in the complaint where that sum was received by the accused or where he misappropriated it. the trial began in the burdwan court. on the evidence, it would appear that the money was received by the accused in calcutta. but the magistrate held that he had no jurisdiction to try the case inasmuch as the offence had not been committed within the local area of the burdwan court. this order was set aside on revision by the sessions.....
Judgment:

1. This is a Rule issued at the instance of the accused Gouranga Sundar Mandal, calling on the District Magistrate and the complainant to show cause why a transfer of the case from Bardwan should not be directed or such other order made as to this Court may seem fit. It appears that the head Cutchery of the Zemindars, of whom the accused is a servant, is at Burdwan. The accused was sometime in 1322 stationed at Jiagange Cutchery in the Murshidabad District as a gomasta in charge of the Zemindar's estates there. He is now charged with criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 89. It is not expressly mentioned in the complaint where that sum was received by the accused or where he misappropriated it. The trial began in the Burdwan Court. On the evidence, it would appear that the money was received by the accused in Calcutta. But the Magistrate held that he had no jurisdiction to try the case inasmuch as the offence had not been committed within the local area of the Burdwan Court. This order was set aside on revision by the Sessions Judge of Burdwan, who thought that Burdwan was the proper place where the complaint should be made, and directed a further enquiry by that Court. Against that order the present Rule has been obtained.

2. We think that it is uncertain in which of the several local areas the offence was actually committed, whether in Burdwan, Calcutta or Murshidabad. At the same time, the allegation, as appears from the counter-affidavit, is that the accused was called to Burdwan, that he received the order of dismissal there, and was there asked to render his accounts. That be declined to do and it might be reasonably said that be had retained the monies which were due from him, if they were due, in Burdwan. If that was so, the Burdwan Court would have jurisdiction by virtue of Section 181, Criminal Procedure Code.

3. We think, on the whole, that whether the case falls within Section 181(2) or Section 182, the trial should proceed in the Burdwan Court and we accordingly discharge the Rule.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //