TMI Blog1979 (11) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agalpur, on the allegation of failure to pay to him his dividend amounting to Rs. 30 on three shares held by him. The dividends were declared by the company on 14th August, 1975, for the year ending on March, 1975. The petitioner, after having come to know about it from the company, instructed the company to send his dividend in cash by money order. But the dividend was not sent to him and hence it was not paid to him within 42 days of the declaration as provided by section 207 of the Act. Hence this complaint in Bhagalpur Court. The complaint was dismissed on 27th July, 1977, by the Magistrate on the ground that no offence under section 207 or section 630 of the Act was committed at Bhagalpur, the registered office of the company being at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued." In my opinion, the argument is devoid of any merit. The offence of non-payment of dividend by non-posting became complete once and for all at Calcutta, and no further question of any consequence ensuing at Bhagalpur arises. The contention is, therefore, rejected. The matter to be noticed is that section 207 of the Act makes the failure to post and not the non-receipt of the warrant by the shareholder, an offence. Prima facie both the obligations to post the dividend warrant and the failure to satisfy that obligation would occur at the place where the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holding of the property of a company by its officer or employee. Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 16 urged that there is absolutely no allegation in the complaint for establishing any ingredient of this offence. He further argued that even if such offence is assumed to be committed, it must be held to have been committed in Calcutta and not at Bhagalpur. In my opinion, the agrument is well founded and must be accepted as correct. I am of the view that even if this offence is assumed to have been committed, it was committed in Calcutta and not at Bhagalpur on the principles laid down in the aforesaid Supreme Court case. The complainant further relied on Banwarilal Jhunjhunwala v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1620, but that was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l general meeting to be held on 14th August, 1976, at the company's registered office to declare a dividend for the year ending 31st March, 1975. The contention, therefore, must be repelled. It was next canvassed that the principle underlying section 187, Cr. PC, would apply to the present case and in view of these principles the Bhagalpur Court will have jurisdiction to try the offence. In my opinion, the contention is not sound. This section will apply only to a case where the accused is a person residing within the local jurisdiction of the court. In the instant case not a single person lives within the jurisdiction of any of the courts at Bhagalpur. They are all of Calcutta. Another contention raised by the complainant is that in an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
