Paul De Flondor vs Emperor on 24 March, 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 .