https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311188 Territorial jurisdiction was held to arise where substantial parts of the alleged fraud and misappropriation occurred, even if some related decisions were taken elsewhere, because offences committed wholly or partly in one local area fall within CrPC jurisdiction. The existence of penalties under the Companies Act did not bar prosecution under the Penal Code, since the same act may attract offences under both laws absent an express exclusion, subject only to protection against double punishment. A civil court bar in the Companies Act was also not read as a bar on criminal proceedings, because exclusion clauses must be strictly construed and cannot be extended to criminal courts by implication. en-us Thu, 20 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Dec 2023 20:02:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311188 Territorial jurisdiction was held to arise where substantial parts of the alleged fraud and misappropriation occurred, even if some related decisions were taken elsewhere, because offences committed wholly or partly in one local area fall within CrPC jurisdiction. The existence of penalties under the Companies Act did not bar prosecution under the Penal Code, since the same act may attract offences under both laws absent an express exclusion, subject only to protection against double punishment. A civil court bar in the Companies Act was also not read as a bar on criminal proceedings, because exclusion clauses must be strictly construed and cannot be extended to criminal courts by implication. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 20 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311188