Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.A.Sayed, Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ.
Sanjay Hariram Agrawal - Appellant
Versus
Omprakash Baburao Kamdi - Respondent
Criminal Application No. 628 of 2014 With Interim Application No. 63 of 2020 In Cri.Appln No. 628/2014
Decided On : 09-07-2021
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 181(4) - JURISDICTION - OFFENCE OF CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION OR CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST - COURT WITHIN WHOSE LOCAL JURISDICTION ANY PART OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE OFFENCE WAS REQUIRED TO BE RETURNED OR ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ACCUSED PERSON - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The Applicant, who is the original accused in various criminal cases pending in various Courts, namely, Mumbai, Wardha, Nagpur, Pune and Osmanabad has filed above referred nine Criminal Applications under sections 482 and 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C., 1973") inter alia seeking transfer of these cases to the Competent Court in Mumbai for its trial in accordance with law.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Nagpur Court i.e. Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur has also jurisdiction to deal with the said case.
Issues: Whether the Nagpur Court has jurisdiction to deal with the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court observed that the said change is made from the point of view of victims of the offences. The factual position on record clearly shows that huge amounts which were transferred from 'NDCCB', Nagpur to it's account in the Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Limited, Fort Branch, Mumbai was belonging to the shareholders and depositors of 'NDCCB', Nagpur. The are of operation of NDCCB is only Nagpur District and therefore it is obvious that shareholders and depositors of NDCCB are from Nagpur District. The said amount was to be utilised for purchasing Government of India Securities. The original certificate of Government of India securities were to be delivered at 'NDCCB', Nagpur. The huge funds from 'NDCCB', Nagpur were transferred from Nagpur to NDCCB's account in Maharashtra State Co- Operative Bank Limited, Fort at Mumbai and the same were misappropriated or subjected to criminal breach of Trust and therefore, either the original Government of India securities or the said huge funds were required to be returned to NDCCB, Nagpur or accounted to 'NDCCB', Nagpur. Even if NDCCB, Nagpur has got account at Maharashtra State Co- Operative Bank Limited, Fort Branch at Mumbai and even if entire transaction was done through said account at Mumbai and some amounts are returned in said Mumbai account of NDCCB, Nagpur by accused, the fact remains that the said amounts ultimately belong to the shareholders and the depositors of NDCCB, whose area of operation is restricted to Nagpur District and therefore, the said amounts are ultimately required to be returned to or accounted for by the accused person to the shareholders and depositors of NDCCB at Nagpur. Thus, it is clear that Nagpur Court i.e. Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur has also jurisdiction to deal with said case.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition.
JUDGMENT
MADHAV J.JAMDAR,J. - The Applicant, who is the original accused in various criminal cases pending in various Courts, namely, Mumbai, Wardha, Nagpur, Pune and Osmanabad has filed above referred nine Criminal Applications under sections 482 and 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C., 1973") inter alia seeking transfer of these cases to the Competent Court in Mumbai for its trial in accordance with law. The details of all these cases are as under :
| Criminal Application No. | CR.No. Police Station | Case No. and Court | Offence punishable under sections | Status of Applicant |
| 624/2014 | 83/2005 and 13/2005 Santacruz police station | CC.No.412/PW/2007 Add. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. | 409, 420, 34 IPC | Accused No.2 |
| 625/2014 | CR.No.8172 002 L.T.Marg police station. Mumbai | CCNo.324/P/2GQ2 Add.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47 th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. | 409, 420, r/w.. 120(B) of IPC | Accused No.3 |
| 626/2014 | C.R.No.50/2 004 E.O.W. Mumbai CR.No.298/ 2004 Santacruz police station | CC.No.197/PW/2007 Add.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. | 409, 465, 120(B) of IPC | Accused No.l |
| 627/2014 | C.R.110 of 2002 and No. 124/2002, Wardha Police Station | CCNo.573/2002 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha | 406, 409, 420 r/ w. 34 IPC | Accused No.l |
| 628/2014 | C.R. No. 101/2002 (Original C.R. No. 97/2002 of Ganeshpeth Police Station, Nagpur. | C.C.No. 147/2002 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur | 406, 409, 468, 471 r/w. 120-B r/w. Section 34 of IPC | Accused No.3 |
| 629/2014 | C.R. No. 65 of 2002 Vishrambag Police Station, Pune | C.C.No.357/2002 J. M. F.C., Shivaji Nagar, Pune | 406, 409, 420, r/w 34 of IPC | Accused No.l |
| 630/2014 | C.R. No. 75 of 2002 City Kotwali Police Station, Amravati | C.C.No.847/2003 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati | 406, 409, 420, 468, 34, 120B of IPC | Accused No.21 |
| 631/2014 | C.R.No. 102/2002 Pimpri Police Station, Pune | C.C.No.498/2002 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pimpri, Pune | 465, 467, 468, 471, 406, 408, 420, 34 of IPC | Accused No. 20 |
| 1022/2014 | C.R.No.45/2 002 of EOW (Original C.R. No. 158/2002. | C.C.No.398/2002 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad | 406, 409, 420, 468, 471 r/w. Section 34 IPC | Accused No.7 |
2. We have heard Mr.Niteen Pradhan, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, Mr.AA.Kumbhakoni, learned Advocate General for the Respondent - State of Maharashtra, Mr. B.B.Tiwari, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.4 in Criminal Application No.624 of 2014 and Mr.D.H.Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.4 to 7, 9, 11 to 13 in Criminal Application No.627 of 2014.
3. At the outset we note that both Mr. Niteen Pradhan, learned Counsel and Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni, the learned Advocate General advanced submissions by referring to the facts of the Criminal Application No. 628 of 2014.
4. Mr.Niteen Pradhan, learned Counsel contended that transactions which are the subject matter of all these Criminal cases had taken place at Mumbai and, therefore, the Courts at Nagpur, Wardha, Pune, Amravati and Osmanabad have no jurisdiction to conduct the trial of these cases. He mainly relied on section 181(4) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. He relied on several judgments of this Court as well as of Hon'ble Supreme Court. He submitted that alleged offence is of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust and entire transaction had taken place in Mumbai and, therefore, as per section 181(4) of Cr.P.C., 1973 the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed has jurisdiction to conduct trial and, therefore, Court at Mumbai
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
