Territorial jurisdiction in balance-sheet false statement complaints may exist despite an alleged signing place elsewhere.

A complaint alleging false statements in a company balance-sheet was held to fall within the Narayanganj Court's territorial jurisdiction. The Court rejected the objection that jurisdiction depended only on where the balance-sheet was signed, because the place of signature was not proved and that circumstance did not displace jurisdiction. It held that the offence concerned a false statement in a document required by the Companies Act, and that the company's business presence at Dacca, service of notices there, the location of the mills within the Narayanganj sub-division, and receipt of the balance-sheet within the area were sufficient local links under the criminal procedure law. The reference was rejected and the matter remitted for disposal according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Narayanganj Court lacked jurisdiction to try the complaint alleging false statements in a company balance-sheet because the balance-sheet was said to have been signed at Calcutta; (ii) Whether, on the facts, territorial jurisdiction was attracted under the criminal procedure law and the Companies Act.

Issue (i): Whether the Narayanganj Court lacked jurisdiction to try the complaint alleging false statements in a company balance-sheet because the balance-sheet was said to have been signed at Calcutta.

Analysis: The alleged lack of jurisdiction was not supported by evidence on record. The place where the balance-sheet was signed was not established, and the mere assertion in the petition was insufficient to displace the Magistrate's jurisdiction. The Court also rejected the narrow argument that jurisdiction could lie only where the balance-sheet was signed, noting that the statutory offence concerned the making of a false statement in a document required by the Companies Act and that the surrounding facts connected the matter with Narayanganj and Dacca.

Conclusion: The objection to jurisdiction on the ground that the balance-sheet was signed at Calcutta failed.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts, territorial jurisdiction was attracted under the criminal procedure law and the Companies Act.

Analysis: The company carried on business at Dacca, notices were served there, the mills were situated within the Narayanganj sub-division, and the complainant received the balance-sheet within that jurisdiction. In these circumstances, territorial jurisdiction was held to be available under the criminal procedure provision governing local jurisdiction, and the company-law provisions concerning the balance-sheet did not exclude that result.

Conclusion: The Narayanganj Court had jurisdiction to deal with the complaint.

Final Conclusion: The reference was rejected and the matter was sent back to the lower court for disposal according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a complaint concerning a false statement in a company balance-sheet, territorial jurisdiction is not ousted merely because the document may have been signed elsewhere, where the offence and its operative connections are sufficiently linked to the local court's territorial area.

---