1. This matter is like fighting with shadows. One Mohammad Rashid Khan, who is a subject of the Bhopal State, was not extradited by that State for an offence under Section 406, I.P.C. The question, therefore, is what is to be done. It is argued on his behalf that the offence under Section 406, I.P.C., if any committed, was committed in Bhopal and not in British territory. The answer to that is simple. Under Section 179, Criminal P. C, when a person is accused of the commission of an offence by reason of anything which has been done, and of any consequence which has ensued, such offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any such thing has been done, or any such consequence has ensued. The consequence which ensued here is that money was taken out of the pocket of a British Indian subject. That man suffered in Allahabad from the consequence of the applicant's supposed guilt. Section 181(2), Criminal P. C, does not in any way modify the provisions of Section 179. Under Section 181(2) an offence of criminal misappropriation or a criminal breach of trust may be inquired into where the offence was committed.
2. In the present case an offence of criminal misappropriation may be said to have been committed both in the Bhopal territory and at Allahabad. There is no divergence, as there cannot be in such an excellent Code as the Criminal Procedure Code, between Section 179 and Section 181(2). I will not inquire into the facts. The applicant, if he is innocent, had better surrender and prove his innocence. Any opinion that I may give on the facts would not be binding on any Court which subsequently tries the accused. This application is dismissed.