1. The objection that the trial was barred under the first proviso to Section 188, Criminal P.C., for want of the certificate of the Political Agent for Karaikal appears to me to be sound. As against the accused 1 (petitioner in Criminal R.C.No. 600 of 1932) there was evidence that he was seen near the place from which the buffalo was stolen (in British territory). If the learned Sub-Magistrate had held that his possession in French territory afforded a ground for presuming that he had committed the theft in British territory, Section 188, proviso 1 would have had no application. But the learned Sub-Magistrate convicted both the accused merely for dishonest retention, and the only evidence of retention was of retention in French territory. This is I think precisely one of the cases which Prov. 1, Section 188, Criminal P.C., was intended to meet. The trial was therefore without jurisdiction. I set aside the conviction and sentences and direct that the bail bonds executed by the petitioners be cancelled.