AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this case the allegations made in the complaint against the accused-petitioner are that while the accused was in the service of the complainant firm at Singapore, he committed criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 12,379 and goods to the value of Rs. 2,386-13-0. The complaint was made to the Presidency Magistrate of the Northern Division on the 17th of June, and the accused obtained the present Rule on the 10th of January 1921. His contention is that on the allegations made by the prosecution the offence complained of, if any, was committed and completed in Singapore and that the Courts in Calcutta have no jurisdiction to try the case. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the provisions of Section 181(2) of, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the, decision of this Court reported as Simhachalam v. Rali Kanta Laha 41 Ind. Cas. 138 : 44 C. 912 : 21 C.W.N. 573 : 25 C.L.J. 451 : 18 Cr.L.J. 762.
But here the further case of the prosecution was that for alt monies deceived the accused was to account at Calcutta. Thus, the decision directly in point is that reported as Colville v. Kristo Kishore Bose 26 C. 746 : 3 C.W.N. 598 : 13 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1077. Following that decision, we must hold that on the allegations made the Courts in Calcutta have jurisdiction.
We, therefore, discharge this Rule.