https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311410 Territorial jurisdiction was upheld because part of the alleged retention of trust property occurred within Calcutta under Section 181(4) CrPC. The complaint nevertheless failed on substance because it did not clearly allege dishonest misappropriation or conversion, which are essential to criminal breach of trust; mere retention of trust monies was insufficient, and the conspiracy allegation could not survive on that same deficient foundation. The prosecution was also time-barred, as the alleged offence was complete once and for all, not continuing, and the complaint was filed beyond the three-year limitation period applicable to Section 406 IPC. The revisional application succeeded and the criminal proceeding was quashed. en-us Wed, 18 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Dec 2023 18:19:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311410 Territorial jurisdiction was upheld because part of the alleged retention of trust property occurred within Calcutta under Section 181(4) CrPC. The complaint nevertheless failed on substance because it did not clearly allege dishonest misappropriation or conversion, which are essential to criminal breach of trust; mere retention of trust monies was insufficient, and the conspiracy allegation could not survive on that same deficient foundation. The prosecution was also time-barred, as the alleged offence was complete once and for all, not continuing, and the complaint was filed beyond the three-year limitation period applicable to Section 406 IPC. The revisional application succeeded and the criminal proceeding was quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 18 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311410