Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
13. The soundness of this decision has been doubted by Rankin, C. J., in the case of G. N. Pascal v. Raj Kishore Mathur , and has been dissented from recently by a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in In re Jivandas v. Savchand A.I.R. 1930 Bom. 490. It seems to be based upon a somewhat curious mistake. The learned Judge in the course of a careful review of the law points out that it is sometimes difficult to prove exactly where misappropriation takes place, because misappropriation depends upon intention, and. it is not always clear where the intention to misappropriate was formed. In some oases the only evidence of intention to misappropriate is the failure of the accused to render an account and make payment at a particular place according to the terms of his contract of service. In such cases the venue may be laid at the place where the account ought to have been rendered. This was decided in B. v. Davidson and Gordon [1855] 7 Cox.C.C. 158, where Baron Alderson said:
Where there is no evidence of fraudulent embezzlement, except the nonaccounting, the venue may be laid in the place where the non-accounting occurred, because the jury may presume that there the fraudulent misappropriation was made, but this cannot apply where there is distinct evidence of the misappropriation elsewhere.
15. Mukerji, J., quotes this passage in his judgment but adds the following phrase "for then the offence is triable in either place" and seems to be under the impression that these words were uttered by-Baron Alderson, because he quotes them as such. But these words are not in the report and are the direct antithesis of what Baron Alderson said. A reference to Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 9, para. 583, will show that they have bean taken from note (r) to that para. and have been added by the authors of that work. This is ' an example of the danger of quoting from decisions second-.hand instead of consulting the original report. The note is most misleading.