Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.78 seconds)Section 181 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 182 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Emperor vs Shridhar Mahadeo Pathak on 4 October, 1934
In Emperor v. Mahadeo,2 in which the facts were very similar to those before us, it was held that Section 182 would apply to such a case. The view taken by the learned Magistrate that he had no jurisdiction is therefore in my opinion wrong. I agree with the order proposed to be made.
Paul De Flondor vs Emperor on 24 March, 1931
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.
Gunananda Dhone vs Lala Santi Prakash Nandy on 25 October, 1924
7. The applicant in the present case does not rely on Section 179 and the decision in In re Jivandas Savachand A.I.R. 1930 Bom. 490 is not there fore directly in point. According to the applicant the dishonest misappropriation or conversion took place in Bombay bet ween 16th and 19th December, and if the applicant can prove this, the offence would have been committed in Bombay itself and not in Karachi or anywhere in Gujarat, where the articles are said to have been sold and the money received by the accused Certain remarks of Madgavkar, J. in In re Jivandas Savachand A.I.R. 1930 Bom. 490 appear to me to be very appropriate to the case before us. After referring to the decision of Mukerji, J. in Gunananda Dhone v. Lala Santi Prakash Handy he said (p. 85):
Queen-Empress vs O' Brien on 21 August, 1896
No doubt Tudball, J. followed an earlier decision of the Allahabad High Court, Queen-Empress v. O'Brien (1896) 19 All 111 where jurisdiction was said to depend upon Section 179. That is contrary to the view which has been taken by a Full Bench of this Court in In re Jivandas Savachand A.I.R. 1930 Bom. 490. But the learned Judge also said: "S. 182 of the Code would apply, it seems to me, equally well". I can see no reason why Section 182 should not be applied if the facts are as alleged. Of course if it should appear, after all the evidence is heard, that there is really no doubt about the matter that there was no misappropriation or conversion or wrongful disposal in Bombay at all, and that if any offence was committed it must have been outside Bombay, the plea of want of jurisdiction would have to be sustained and there could be no conviction. But that stage has not been reached.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1