https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101891 Territorial jurisdiction for wrongful withholding of property lay where the retention occurred, namely Jamshedpur, because the alleged offence was complete there. Section 181(4) CrPC could not be stretched to found jurisdiction in Bombay merely because the company kept its office and accounts there, and section 179 CrPC was inapplicable because any loss or inconvenience in Bombay was only consequential. A plea under section 462 CrPC also failed since the complaint had been instituted in a court lacking jurisdiction from the outset. The criminal process issued in Bombay was therefore quashed. en-us Thu, 16 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:37:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101891 Territorial jurisdiction for wrongful withholding of property lay where the retention occurred, namely Jamshedpur, because the alleged offence was complete there. Section 181(4) CrPC could not be stretched to found jurisdiction in Bombay merely because the company kept its office and accounts there, and section 179 CrPC was inapplicable because any loss or inconvenience in Bombay was only consequential. A plea under section 462 CrPC also failed since the complaint had been instituted in a court lacking jurisdiction from the outset. The criminal process issued in Bombay was therefore quashed. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 16 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101891