Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1077 (PAT)

Chandra Shekhar Gupta v. State Of Bihar

2000-09-05

S.N.PATHAK

body2000
Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This quashing application is directed against the order of cognizance dated 18.02.1997 in Complaint Case No. 1437(C) of 1996. 2. The alleged facts in the complaint petition are to the effect that the complainant is the President of an Industrial Unit in the name and style of "M/s Blue Heavens Agro Industries Limited", duty registered under the Companies Act. Its business is of manufacturing fruit juice. The aforesaid industrial company, to complement its financial stability, decided to float investors shares of Rs. 130.33 lacs. The complainants company entered into an agreement with the T.C.I. Finance Limited at Delhi on 10.05.1995 and the T.C.I. agreed to become its lead manager of public issue of shares. As per the agreement, the complainant had to pay rupees three lacs as fee to the lead manager. As per the agreement, the accused persons including the T.C.I. and the Uco Bank. among others, have to manage the each and everyday affair regarding the public issue of shares. The complainant, inter alia, further alleged that shares money to the tune of Rs. 27.50 lacs were collected by the Uco Bank and the same were paid to the T.C.I. Finance Company at Delhi. Although other banks paid their amount collected through shares to the complainant. So the complainant alleged misappropriation of Rs. 27.50 lacs by the T.C.I. Company at Delhi and the Uco Bank. 3. During the course of submission by the petitioners of this miscellaneous- case, it was submitted that Patna Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and, therefore, it had no power to take cognizance. Because the agreements were signed at Delhi and the public shares were issued and amounts collected beyond the jurisdiction of Patna, hence, the Patna Court had no jurisdiction. It was further submitted that as a matter of fact, no money was collected from the issue of public shares and if at all any amount was received, it belonged to the T.C.I. Finance Company by way of its share and, hence, there was no alleged misappropriation of any amount by the petitioners. So territorial jurisdiction and want of any money belonging to the complainant were the grounds on which the alleged cognizance order has been challenged. 4. So territorial jurisdiction and want of any money belonging to the complainant were the grounds on which the alleged cognizance order has been challenged. 4. So far territorial jurisdiction is concerned it has to be seen whether, of course, agreement between the complainant and accused Company including the bank were entered into beyond the jurisdiction of Patna. The statement in paragraph-12 of the complaint petition shows that the complainant had requested the concerned banks and the T.C.I. Company to transfer the money collected through shares to its bank at Patna. At paragraph-12, it is also stated that all the other banks except the accused Uco Bank transferred the money to the Patna bank of the complainant. The Uco Bank failed to transfer the money to the tune of Rs. 27.50 lacs to the complainant in the Bank of India, Patna Branch, and the T.C.I. Company and the Uco Bank, both in collusion, misappropriated the amount by transferring the same to T.C.I. Company at Delhi. 5. Now it has to be seen whether the Patna court had jurisdiction to entertain the case or not and whether of course any money, as alleged, was collected by the T.C.I. Company and the Uco Bank. In this connection, first l shall address the question whether Patna Court had territorial Jurisdiction. Section 181(4), Cr.P.C. refers to the territorial jurisdiction regarding the offence relating to criminal misappropriation or criminal breach or trust. Sub-section (4) is clear to the effect that the territory, in which the subject matter of the offence was required to be returned or accounted for would also have the jurisdiction. It is better to quote the entire sub-section (4) in order to clarify the position in this connection :- "(4) any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused persons." 6. In the instant case, the complainant alleged that any amount collected by the public issue of shares by the accused bank and had to be paid to the account of the complainant in the Bank of lndia, Patna Bench. In the instant case, the complainant alleged that any amount collected by the public issue of shares by the accused bank and had to be paid to the account of the complainant in the Bank of lndia, Patna Bench. This was not donw and, hence, this lapse on the part of the accused bank and the company would certainly give territorial jurisdiction to the Courts of Patna. 7. So far the dispute regarding the collection of money on the public issue of shares, I am of the opinion that the complainant alleges that money to the tune of . Rs. 27.50 lacs were collected on its behalf and the accused contend this fact and allegation and, therefore, that can be decided only by trial Court and not on the mere description of the petitioners lawyer. 8. Apparently and on the face of it, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order of cognizance, l am, therefore, of the opinion that this miscellaneous case is not maintainable on its merit or on its technical objections. Hence, this miscellaneous case is dismissed.