1. This is an application for revision by one Behari Lal against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Cawnpur, dated the 4th of May 1926, refusing to order further enquiry into the complaint filed by him against Gangadin and Baboo Lal for criminal misappropriation. At the outset I must state that there are some sentences in this judgment, which really have no bearing on the case and give a view of the law of misappropriation which is wrong. The Judge says:
Wrongful gain or wrongful loss is not an essential part of the offence of criminal misappropriation, and a person is not accused by reason of it.
2. If the a learned Judge had only taken the trouble to read the definition of the offence, and had looked at Section 24 of the Penal Code, defining the word 'dishonestly' I am positively certain that the learned Judge would not have written what he did in the judgment. Clearly a man is accused of an offence of breach of trust, because he had misappopriated property dishonestly. Then the learned Judge has given a curious reason for declining to act, because besides the complainant somebody else could also have taken action against the accused; therefore the learned Judge thinks that no steps should be taken against the accused. I cannot understand this great sympathy for the accused by the learned Judge. The fact that besides the complainant 50 other persons could complain against an accused has got nothing to do with the case against the accused.
3. Now, coming to the facts of the case: the complainant came on the, allegations that he, one Ram Prasad and the two accused were members of a partnership firm and that the two accused were managers. They supplied no capital, but were working as partners and the shop was at Sitapur. They have not rendered account and have misappropriated funds. The learned Magistrate, who tried the case, after recording evidence, came to the conclusion that the complainant had not made out the case that the accused had either to submit account or to pay to the complainant the profits of the firm at Cawnpur. Therefore, any act which the accused have done, and, the consequence of that act took place at Sitapur. I am unable to say that upon this view the case of misappropriation against the accused could go on in the Cawnpur Court. The cases referred to by Mr. Saila Nath Mukerji viz., Queen-Empress v. O'Brien  19 All. 111; Mahadeo v. Emperor  32 All. 397; George Langridge v. Grace Atkins  35 All. 29; Colville v. Kristo Kristore Bose  26 Cal. 746; Rajani Binod Chakravarti v. All India Banking and Insurance Co., Ltd;  41 Cal. 305 and Abdul Latif Yusuf v. Abu. Mohomed Kassim A.I.R. 1922 Cal. 46; really do not apply, because in each of those cases the accused have done, or had been held to be liable to do something at the place where the case was tried. In this case, upon the evidence that the accused had to do nothing at Cawnpur, I cannot say that under Section 179 of the Criminal P.C. any consequent act of the accused can be held to have happened in the District of Cawnpur. Under these circumstances, I dismiss the application.