Parbhubhai Paragji Vs. State

Parbhubhai Paragji vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Decided Oct 31, 1955

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/342201

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/342201
Court: Mumbai High Court
Judge: Vyas and ;Shah, JJ.
Decided On: Oct 31, 1955
Case Number: Criminal Appln. No. 1090 of 1955
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

The case dealt with the power of the High Court to quash the pending proceedings for charge under Section 400 of the Penal Code - It was alleged that the petitioner was entrusted with a sum at New Zealand, for paying it to a person residing within the jurisdiction of the Navsari Court and the misappropriation of the...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1908 - Sections 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 409

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Parbhubhai Paragji

Advocate Rajani Patel and ;V.B. Patel, Advs.;D.V. Patel, Adv.

Respondent

State

Advocate Govt. Pleader

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1908 - Sections 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 409
Reported In: AIR1956Bom232; 1956CriLJ497

Excerpt

the case dealt with the power of the high court to quash the pending proceedings for charge under section 400 of the penal code - it was alleged that the petitioner was entrusted with a sum at new zealand, for paying it to a person residing within the jurisdiction of the navsari court and the misappropriation of the amount was alleged to have taken place within the jurisdiction of the navsari court - it was held that the navsari court had the jurisdiction to try the accused and the proceedings could not be quashed - - 2. it would appear that the learned judicial magistrate, 1st class, navsari, was 'prima facie' satisfied that his court has jurisdiction to try the accused upon a charge under section 409, i......sessions judge, surat, was rejected by the learned sessions judge.2. it would appear that the learned judicial magistrate, 1st class, navsari, was 'prima facie' satisfied that his court has jurisdiction to try the accused upon a charge under section 409, i. p. c. mr. rajani patel, who appears for the petitioner, has raised a point that the learned magistrate's court had no jurisdiction to try the accused, because the entrustment had taken place in. new zealand.3. now if we turn to the charge against the petitioner, the charge leads that the petitioner was entrusted by one parbhubhai gonsai-bhai with a sum of 1550/- at wellington, new zealand, and the entrustment was made for the purpose that the above-mentioned amount or its equivalent in indian currency be paid to one govanbhai madhabhai at kachhiwadi, a village situated in taluk navsari.the charge further alleged that the petitioner upon reaching sarporepardi dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use the abovementloned amount of 1550/- or dishonestly used it or disposed it of in violation of the directions of law prescribing the mode in which such trust was to be discharged.4. mr. bajani patel for the petitioner says that the 'evidence in the case did not disclose that any offence was committed by the petitioner within the jurisdiction of the navsari court. it may be noted in this context that the case of the complainant is that the amount with, which the petitioner was entrusted at wellington in new zealand was given to the petitioner for a specific purpose, viz. that the said amount or its equivalent in indian currency was to be paid. to govinbhai madhabhai at kachhiwadi, a village situated in navsari taluka. whether ultimately the magistrate conies to the conclusion that the misappropriation had actually occurred in sarporepardi or not is a different matter.what we have got to consider when a prayer is made to this court for quashing the proceedings pending against the accused is the.....

Full Judgment

Vyas, J.

1. The petitioner in this application is one Parbhubhai Paragji. who is an accused person in Criminal Case No. 513 of 1954 pending in the Court of the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Navsari. It is prayed by the petitioner that the proceedings pending against him in the criminal case be quashed and that he be ordered to be discharged. It may be noted that a similar request made by him before the learned Sessions Judge, Surat, was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge.

2. It would appear that the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Navsari, was 'prima facie' satisfied that his Court has jurisdiction to try the accused upon a charge under Section 409, I. P. C. Mr. Rajani Patel, who appears for the petitioner, has raised a point that the learned Magistrate's Court had no jurisdiction to try the accused, because the entrustment had taken place In. New Zealand.

3. Now if we turn to the charge against the petitioner, the charge leads that the petitioner was entrusted by one Parbhubhai Gonsai-bhai with a sum of 1550/- at Wellington, New Zealand, and the entrustment was made for the purpose that the above-mentioned amount or its equivalent in Indian currency be paid to one Govanbhai Madhabhai at Kachhiwadi, a village situated in Taluk Navsari.

The charge further alleged that the petitioner upon reaching Sarporepardi dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use the abovementloned amount of 1550/- or dishonestly used it or disposed it of in violation of the directions of law prescribing the mode in which such trust was to be discharged.

4. Mr. Bajani Patel for the petitioner says that the 'evidence in the case did not disclose that any offence was committed by the Petitioner within the jurisdiction of the Navsari Court. It may be noted in this context that the case of the complainant is that the amount with, which the petitioner was entrusted at Wellington in New Zealand was given to the petitioner for a specific purpose, viz. that the said amount or its equivalent In Indian currency was to be paid. to Govinbhai Madhabhai at Kachhiwadi, a village situated in Navsari Taluka. Whether ultimately the Magistrate conies to the conclusion that the misappropriation had actually occurred in Sarporepardi or not is a different matter.

What we have got to consider when a prayer is made to this Court for quashing the proceedings pending against the accused is the allegation made in the charge itself and according to the allegation made in the charge although the entrustment took place at Wellington, New Zealand, the dishonest misappropriation or conversion of the amount with which the petitioner was entrusted is alleged to have taken place at Kachhiwadi, a place undoubtedly situated within the jurisdiction of the Navsari Taluka. That being so, in our view, the petitioner has not made out any case why the proceedings pending against him in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate should be quashed. The application fails 'and is dismissed.

5. Application dismissed.

Same Parties Parbhubhai Paragji vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Vyas and ;Shah, JJ. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1908 - Sections 439; Indi...

Criminal