Fateh Singh vs Emperor Through Bishamber Sahai on 20 September, 1939
6. This view is binding on me though it has been dissented from by other Courts in several subsequent cases, e.g., Vasanji Khimjee v. Kanji Tokersey (1938) 25 AIR Rang 94; Mukhi Tirathdass v. Jethanand Matwalomal (1937) 24 AIR Sind 68 In the present case however there is no allegation that the property which is the subject of the alleged offence had to be delivered under the contract between the parties at Mohiuddinpur and hence the only question for consideration is whether the mere liability to account at Mohiuddinpur is sufficient in view of this Court's decision in Mohra Lal v. Emperor (1936) 23 AIR All 193 to confer jurisdiction on the Criminal Court at Meerut. Upon a very careful perusal of that case, I find that it is clearly distinguishable from the present case and affords no authority for the proposition that where there is only a liability to account at a certain place and no duty to deliver any property at that place still the Criminal Court at the place where the accounting is to be done has jurisdiction to try the offence.