Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (1.73 seconds)
Documents citing Gunananda Dhone vs Lala Santi Prakash Nandy on 25 October, 1924

In Re: Jivandas Savchand vs Unknown on 18 July, 1930

The decision which appeals to me most is the judgment of Mukerji J. in Gunananda Dhone v. Lala Santi Prolcash Nanley (1924) 29 C.W.N. 432, followed in Yacoob Ahmed v. F.M. Abdul Ganny (1928) I.L.R. 6 Ran. 380. I agree entirely with the view of the learned Judge that criminal breach of trust is not an offence which counts as one of its factors the loss, which is the usual consequence of the act, and that it is the act itself which in law amounts to the offence, apart from any such consequence; and therefore the jurisdiction to try an offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust is governed by Section 181, Sub-section (2), and not by Section 179. The only doubt in my mind is as regards the class of cases referred to in the concluding portion of the judgment, where by reason of the secrecy observed by the accused doubt exists as to the exact manner, point of time or place where the misappropriation and conversion, etc., takes place, all matters within the special knowledge of the accused himself, and not of the complainant, who can only judge from any overt act of the accused showing the dishonesty, which is essentially necessary to be proved. In such cases, if and where the accused is under liability to render accounts at a particular time and fails to do so, such failure may be the first overt dishonest act to the complainant's knowledge and the Court within the local limits where such failure takes places may have jurisdiction. But where the offence is completed at one place, the further liability to render accounts at another place and failure in rendering such false accounts at the second place does not confer jurisdiction under Section 179 upon the Magistrate at the latter place since the offence is already " completed at the former place. At the same time, as is conceivable, where the offence is not completed as far as the knowledge and belief of the complainant goes in the place where the money was first sent, but the dishonest intent which is a necessary ingredient is only completed not merely as evidence but actually as factum of dishonesty by some act such as the rendering of accounts, then I am unable to say that even under Section 181, Sub-section ($), the criminal Courts in the latter place are excluded from jurisdiction. In my opinion the matter entirely depends upon where the act of criminal misappropriation including the dishonest intent is completed as far as the knowledge and belief of the complainant according to the complaint go. In such a case I agree with Mukorji J. that the Courts in the place where the act is completed may have jurisdiction even though they may be different from the place where the money has been originally sent by the complainant.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hira Lal Chaudhary And Ors. vs State on 7 March, 1956

The profit and loss account was to be forwarded by the accused to the Head Office in Bombay immediately after the accounts were made up. The allegation against the accused was that they misappropriated the firm's moneys in Rangoon and falsified the accounts in Rangoon. On the basis of the clause in the agreement for rendering account at Bombay the jurisdiction of the Bombay Court was sought to be invoked and reliance was placed on a Calcutta decision in 'Gunananda Dhone v. Santi Prakash Nandy' 1925 Cal 613 AIR V 12 (Z 9).
Allahabad High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bijoyanand Patnaik vs Mrs. K.A.A. Brinnand on 8 August, 1969

In the case of Gunananda Dhone v. Lala Santi Prokash Nanley, decided by Mr. Justice Suhrawardy and Mr. Justice Mukerii and . Mr. Justice Mukerji delivering the judgment of the court observed at page 437 that "where the accused is under a liability to render accounts at a particular place and fails to do so by reason of having committed an offence of criminal breach of trust which is alleged against him, the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction that place is situate, may inquire into and try the offence under the provisions of Section 181, Sub-section (2), Cr. P. C.".
Calcutta High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Hira Lal Chaudhary And Ors. vs State on 7 March, 1956

The profit and loss account was to be forwarded by the accused to the Head Office in Bombay immediately after the accounts were made up. The allegation against the accused was that they misappropriated the firm's moneys in Rangoon and falsified the accounts in Rangoon. On the basis of the clause in the agreement for rendering account at Bombay the jurisdiction of the Bombay Court was sought to be invoked and reliance was placed on a Calcutta decision in 'Gunananda Dhone v. Santi Prakash Nandy', 1925 Cal 613 (AIR V 12) (Z 9).
Allahabad High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next