STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GULANCHAND SWARUPCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application arises out of a private complaint lodged by Opponent No. 1 (who will hereinafter be called the complainant) on 29-2-1960 against the four petitioners (who will hereafter be called the accused) under Section 406 read with Section 114, I. P. C. The complainant claims to be the sole trustee of Khudala Jain Deosthan Trust, which according to the complainant, is registered with the Charity Commissioner at Bombay under the Bombay Trusts Act. The office of the trust is situate in Bombay. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the Honorary Managers and constructive trustees of the Jain temples belonging to the trust situate at Phalna and Khudala in Rajasthan. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are the paid clerks of the trust. The complainant alleged that the temples were old and required repairs and renovations and for that purpose, a sum aggregating Rs. 45,000/- and odd was sent to accused Nos. 1 and 2 from time to time as per their demands. The complainant also alleges that on enquiries he found that the accused had spent only a fraction of the amount, i. e. , Rs. 15,000/- on the construction work and have committed criminal breach of trust of a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and odd. The second allegation made by the complainant is that accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been authorised to receive donations and offerings at the temples and that they have received a sum of Rs. 20,000/- by way of donations. The complainant alleges that he came to know about these receipts while the accused were rendering accounts in Bombay. The third set of allegations is that the complainant had sent silver bars worth Rs, 8,000/- for the purpose of preparing silver utensils for the deities and silver sheets worth Rs. 30,000/- for the doors of the temples. The complainant alleges that these bars and sheets were sold by the accused in Rajasthan and the accused have misappropriated the sale proceeds thus realised.

(2.) AFTER the service of the summons, the accused appeared and raised a preliminary objection that the Bombay Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint, since the offence of criminal misappropriation had taken place outside the limits of the Bombay Court. The trying Magistrate did not accept the preliminary objection and directed to proceed with the complaint. It is against that order that the accused have come up in revision.

(3.) IT would at once be noticed that there are three items which have been mentioned in the complaint and the complainant's case has to be considered separately with regard to each of these items. Taking the simplest case viz. , of the sale of silver bars and sheets it is clear from the allegations contained in the complaint that the silver bars and sheets were sold by accused Nos. 1 and 2 at Rajasthan. That means that the offence of misappropriation was complete in Rajasthan and the complainant had come to know about the same. Taking the next allegation relating to the receipt of donations to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- in the first place it is necessary to remember that while stating the offence the complainant has restricted himself only to two items viz. , the amount sent from Bombay for the purpose of effecting repairs and renovations and the silver bars and sheets also sent from Bombay for the use of the deities. There is no mention in the final paragraph of the complainant that any criminal misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed in Bombay in regard to the amount of donations collected by accused Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Kavlekar, for the Opponent No. 1, Contended that in the earlier part of the complaint the complainant has mentioned that the accused have collected donations to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- and have not sent the moneys to him. He argued that this amounts to making out a case of misappropriation or criminal breach of trust. The relevant sentence runs thus: