DHIRENDRA CH. BHOWMICK Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these Rules the petitioner prays for quashing the charge framed against the petitioner Under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of Clause (7) of Iron and Steel Control Order, 1956.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that the accused, Dhirendra Chandra Bhowmick, of 23/37, Gariahat Road, Calcutta -19, is the proprietor of M/s. Dhirendra Chandra Bhowmick and Co. having its factory situated at Christhadanga, Bankura. The accused petitioner obtained steel materials amounting to about 20 metric tons valued at Rs. 2267.55 paise from the Indian Iron and Steel Co., Calcutta, for the purpose of repair and reconstruction of his factory. The accused petitioner instead of using the said steel materials for the purposes stated in his application sold awat the same in black market. It is also prosecution case that the said factory at Bankura had been closed since 1966 and the steel materials aever reached the factory site.

(3.) MR . Das has drawn my attention to Section 181 of the Or. P. C. Sub -section (4) of Section 181, Cr.PC relates to offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust and it is provided therein that an offence of misappropriation or criminal breach of trust may be enquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence is 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. Mr. Das points out that the property which is the subject of the offence, i.e., steel articles were received at Calcutta within 24 Parganas at the Head Office of the Firm of the accused petitioner. Further, Calcutta would be the place where he has to account for the goods which he has received. Therefore, the trial at Bankura is without jurisdiction, accordingly the charge be quashed.