Mohru Lal vs Emperor on 4 November, 1935
In Paul De Flondor v. Emperor 1931 59 Cal 92, at p. 100 the Court has laid down:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)Documents citing
Paul De Flondor vs Emperor on 24 March, 1931
Prokash Chandra Sircar vs Mohin Chand Haldar on 25 January, 1934
The decision has been doubted in a later decision of this Court in the case of G. N. Pascal v. Raj Kishore Matkur and dissented from in the case of Paul De Flonder v. Emperor . In the former of these cases the facts had not been investigated and no definite rule was laid down. But it is clear that even upon the view whichhas been taken in the latter case, the Court of the Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta has ample jurisdiction to deal with the present case.
Prokash Chandra Sircar vs Mohim Chand Haldar on 25 January, 1934
The decision has been doubted in a later decision of this Court in the case of G.N. Pascal v. Raj Kishore Mathur , and dissented from in the ease of Paul De Flonder v. Emperor . In the former of these cases the facts had not been investigated and no definite rule was laid down. But it is clear that even upon the view which has been taken in the latter case, the Court of the Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta has ample jurisdiction to deal with the present case.
Hira Lal Chaudhary And Ors. vs State on 7 March, 1956
20a. The same view was taken by the Madras High Court in Re, Ram Bilas 1915 Mad 600 AIR V 2 (U) and Krishnamachari v. Shaw Wallace and Co; 1916 Mad 438 AIR V 3 (V); by the Calcutta High Court in Simpachalam v. Rati Kanta Laha 1917 Cal 381 AIR V 4 (W), Paul De Flondor v. Emperor 1931 Cal 528 AIR V 18 (X) and Niwazilal Modi v. Routmull 1931 Cal 532 AIR V 18 (Y), by the Nagpur High Court in Banerji v. Potnis 1924 Nag 253 AIR V 11 (Z) by the Lahore High Court in Aya Ram v. Govind Lal 1933 Lah 559 AIR V 20 (Z1), by the Rangoon High Court in Ali Mohamed Kassim v. Emperor, 1931 Rang 164 AIR V 18 (Z2), and by the Patna High Court in Gowakaran Lal v. Sarjoo Saw 1921 Pat 85 AIR V 8 (Z3).
Bijoyanand Patnaik vs Mrs. K.A.A. Brinnand on 8 August, 1969
The next case is the case of Paul De Flonder v. Emperor decided by Mr. Justice Lort-Williams and Mr. Justice S.K. Ghose.
Daityari Tripatty vs Subodh Chandra Chowdhury on 18 June, 1942
C.C. 158, words being put into the learned Baron's mouth which in fact were those of the learned editor of the relevant article in Hals- bury's Laws of England; and the doctrine that in the absence of positive evidence as to the real place of the offence it may be assumed to have occurred at that place where the accused ought to have accounted was also subscribed by a Bench of this Court in Paul De Flonder v. Emperor .
Anthony D'Mello And Ors. vs Joseph Mathew Pereira on 10 March, 1937
4. Jivandas Savohand, In re Jivandas Savachand A.I.R. 1930 Bom. 490 relied on by the Magistrate does not cover the facts of this case. There was no allegation there that any money was payable in Bombay had been misappropriated in Bombay, 'he Full Bench was only concerned, directly at any rate, with the application of Section 179 which is not relied upon in the 'present case at all. It is not apparently the case of the petitioners that the Bombay Court has jurisdiction because it was the duty of the accused to account in Bombay, nor indeed has that fact been proved as yet. There is some authority for that view. I may mention Paul Da Flondor v. Emperor and Yacoob Ahmed v. V.M. Abdul Ganny A.I.R. 1928 Rang 217. There is no doubt that that is the rule in England. The difficulty seems to me to be to reconcile such a rule with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, as the petitioners do not, as I say, put their case on that ground and as the point has not been argued before us, I prefer to express no opinion on that aspect of the case. Quite apart from it, it is clear that the learned Magistrate's order of discharge is wrong and must be set aside.
Niwasilal Modi And Ors. vs Routhmull on 19 May, 1931
2. The only point for consideration in the present rule therefore is whether Calcutta is the right venue for the trial of the offences with which the petitioners were charged and whether the Magistrate therefore had jurisdiction to try the case. From what I have stated before as to the allegations made by the complainant in his petition of complaint, it would appear that all the acts alleged by the complainant to have been done by the petitioners were done in Behar. It was in Behar that the moneys were alleged to have been received and it was in Behar again that the alleged omissions to credit them in the firm's books took place. All that took place in Calcutta was that the petitioners could not explain their accounts on account of which the suspicion of the complainant that there had been defalcation was confirmed. It is clear therefore that the moneys were not received in Calcutta and there was nothing to indicate that it was retained by the accused in Calcutta. Mr. Sen for the complainant opposite party relied on the concluding, clause in Section 181, Sub-section (2), Criminal P.C., and contended that as there was nonaccounting in Calcutta, it was to be inferred that the offence had been committed in Calcutta where the nonaccounting took place and in support of his contention he relied on an observation made by the learned Judges in an unreported decision (to which my learned brother was a party) in Paul De Flondor v. Emperor .
S. Arunachala Goundan vs K.S. Akhileshwara Ayyar on 17 October, 1951
In 'Paul De Fiondor v. Emperor', 59 Cal 92, it has been held that where there is no evidence to show that the alleged misappropriation was committed, other than the fact of non-accounting, the venue may be laid in the place where the accused failed to account which here as per the razinama is Coimbatore.
1