RAM NATH PANDIT v. STATE OF BIHAR

that background. If he did sign the Vakalatnama at Begusarai, the allegations of the occurrence at Patna shall have to be seen in a different context. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in holding that the present is a case which comes clearly within the meaning of Section 178(b). The case of NAVINCHANDRA N. MAJITHIA Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS relied upon by the petitioner is clearly distinguishable on facts inasmuch as no part of the cause of action occurred at Shillong. The entire transaction of the shares had been 5 done at Bombay. Only for the reason that the Company in question was registered at Shillong that the Complaint filed at Shillong. It was in that background that the Apex Court held that the accused could question the Criminal case filed at Shillong in a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The limited reliance on the said Judgment for the purpose of appropriate directions to transfer the case to the Court at Patna also does not impress this Court. This Court finds no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. S.B.P. (Navin Sinha, J.)