Territorial jurisdiction in company offence cases lies where the statutory duty was breached, not where loss or non-receipt was felt.

Territorial jurisdiction for offences arising from a company's failure to perform a statutory obligation lies where the duty had to be performed and was breached, not where the claimant merely suffered non-receipt. The Bhagalpur Court therefore lacked jurisdiction over the alleged offences under sections 207 and 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, and the Code of Criminal Procedure provisions relied on did not confer jurisdiction there. Section 322 also did not require return of the complaint because, if triable at all, the matter lay in Calcutta, so dismissal for want of maintainability was proper.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Bhagalpur Court had territorial jurisdiction to try the alleged offence of non-payment of dividend under section 207 of the Companies Act, 1956; (ii) whether the Bhagalpur Court had jurisdiction in respect of the alleged offence under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956; (iii) whether sections 179, 182 and 187 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applied so as to confer jurisdiction on the Bhagalpur Court; and (iv) whether the complaint ought to have been returned under section 322 of the Code of Criminal Procedure instead of being dismissed.

Issue (i): whether the Bhagalpur Court had territorial jurisdiction to try the alleged offence of non-payment of dividend under section 207 of the Companies Act, 1956

Analysis: The statutory obligation under section 207 was to post or pay the dividend warrant, and the offence, if any, was completed at the place where that obligation was to be performed. The mere non-receipt of the dividend at the shareholder's address did not shift the place of commission of the offence. The settled rule applied was that jurisdiction lay where the company's registered office was situated and where the default occurred.

Conclusion: The Bhagalpur Court had no jurisdiction to try the alleged offence under section 207; the issue was against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether the Bhagalpur Court had jurisdiction in respect of the alleged offence under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956

Analysis: The complaint did not establish the ingredients of wrongful withholding of company property with sufficient basis, and even if the offence were assumed, it was not committed within Bhagalpur. On the same territorial principle, the place of commission was Calcutta, not Bhagalpur.

Conclusion: The Bhagalpur Court had no jurisdiction in respect of the alleged offence under section 630; the issue was against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): whether sections 179, 182 and 187 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applied so as to confer jurisdiction on the Bhagalpur Court

Analysis: Section 179 did not assist because the offence was complete where the statutory duty was breached and no relevant consequence within Bhagalpur was shown. Section 182 was inapplicable because the matter was not an offence committed by letters or telecommunication in the statutory sense. Section 187 also did not apply because it concerns residence within local jurisdiction, and no accused resided within Bhagalpur.

Conclusion: None of the relied-upon provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure conferred jurisdiction on the Bhagalpur Court; the issue was against the petitioner.

Issue (iv): whether the complaint ought to have been returned under section 322 of the Code of Criminal Procedure instead of being dismissed

Analysis: Return of the complaint under section 322 would have been appropriate only if some court in Bhagalpur had jurisdiction to try the matter. Since the alleged offences were triable, if at all, only in Calcutta, section 322 did not apply. The dismissal was treated as one for want of maintainability, not on merits.

Conclusion: The complaint was not required to be returned under section 322; the issue was against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the Bhagalpur Court lacked territorial jurisdiction and the dismissal of the complaint for want of maintainability was proper.

Ratio Decidendi: For offences arising from failure to perform a statutory obligation by a company, jurisdiction lies where the obligation was required to be performed and was breached; the place where the claimant suffers non-receipt or loss does not, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction.

---