1. This is a rule to show cause why proceedings under Section 409, I.P.C. now pending against the petitioners in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta should not be quashed on the ground that a Magistrate In Calcutta has no jurisdiction to try the case. The material circumstances are to be gathered from the petition upon which this rule was granted. It would appear that the complainant, who is a partner of a firm carrying on business in the town of Calcutta made a complaint in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate to the following effect: On 14th March 1939 one Manindra Bhusan Sarkar, a contractor at Barisal, placed an order for certain goods valued at about Rs. 607 with the complainant's firm. The goods were to be sent to Barisal and it was arranged that the purchase price would be remitted to the complainant's firm by a bank at Barisal which is known as the Barisal Union Bank. It was alleged that the purchaser deposited this sum with the bank at Barisal and instructed that bank to remit the money to the complainant's firm at Calcutta. The petitioners who are the Secretary and Managing Director of the Bank have dishonestly retained the money in contravention of this direction. The Magistrate upon receiving this complaint examined the complainant and recorded the following order:
I should like to know who is actually responsible for the offence alleged. Probably the question of jurisdiction will also have to be considered. Police to inquire and report.
2. On 23rd June 1939 the police submitted a report to the effect that the complainant had corroborated the statements contained in his petition of complaint and had produced documentary evidence to support it. Thereupon the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate recorded the following order: 'Report seen. Issue warrant against B.C. Majumdar and Section Huda under Section 409, I.P.C. (Bail Rs. 500 each).' The petitioners were thereafter arrested at Barisal and were released on bail. It has been contended before us by Mr. Chatterjee who appears to oppose this Rule that the provisions of Section 179, Criminal P.C. govern the present case. That Section is in the following terms:
When a person is accused of the commission of any 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.
3. Mr. Chatterjee's contention is that inasmuch as the loss occasioned to the complainant's firm by reason of the alleged criminal breach of trust is a loss which would be suffered in Calcutta, the Court at Calcutta has jurisdiction. In our judgment, Section 179 of Code has no application to the offence of criminal breach of trust which is governed by Sub-section (2) of Section 181 of the Code. The language of that sub-section is as follows:
The offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any part of the property which is the. subject of the offence was received or retained by the accused person, or the offence was committed.
4. Now, upon the allegations contained in the petition of complaint the entire property which is the subject of the offence alleged that is to say, the sum of about Rs. 607, being the price of the goods supplied by the complainant's firm to their customer at Barisal, was received by the petitioners at Barisal and the whole of it is being retained by them at that place. This money was according to the complaint entrusted to the petitioners at Barisal by Manindra Bhusan Sarkar and the petitioners have deliberately omitted to remit the money to the complainant in violation of Manindra's instructions as to the manner in which the money entrusted to them was to be applied. According to these allegations, both the en-trustment and the breach took place at Barisal and the offence was completed there. Upon the facts alleged we cannot under. stand how it could be said that any part of the property in question was received or retained elsewhere than in Barisal or that the offence was committed in any other place. The rule must accordingly be made absolute. The petitioners will be discharged from their bail.
5. I agree.