https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311410 The court determined that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, had territorial jurisdiction. However, the complaint failed to disclose all necessary elements of an offence under Section 406 IPC, and it was barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. The court concluded that the alleged offence was not a continuing one. Consequently, the proceedings in Case No. 2396 of 1980 were quashed, and the order dated 7-1-82 was set aside. The fixed deposit receipts were ordered to be returned to the petitioners, with a stay on the order's operation for two months. 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 The court determined that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, had territorial jurisdiction. However, the complaint failed to disclose all necessary elements of an offence under Section 406 IPC, and it was barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. The court concluded that the alleged offence was not a continuing one. Consequently, the proceedings in Case No. 2396 of 1980 were quashed, and the order dated 7-1-82 was set aside. The fixed deposit receipts were ordered to be returned to the petitioners, with a stay on the order's operation for two months. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 18 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311410