A court at the place where the accounting for the misappropriated property is to be done has jurisdiction to try an offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust.

1. All the three criminal revision cases arise out of Crl. R.P. Nos. 268 and 269 of 1991 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge by his order dated 5.11.1991 allowed both the Crl. Petitions setting aside the order of the learned XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C. No.157 of 1989 and held that the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad has no jurisdiction to try the case. Originally, on a complaint filed against the accused, the learned XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad held that the Court at Hyderabad has got jurisdiction to try the case.

2. Crl. R.C. No. 12 of 1992 is preferred by the learned Public Prosecutor while Crl. R.C. Nos. 44 and 45 of 1992 are filed by the de facto complainant.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the above criminal revision cases are, in brief, as follows: A-1 is the firm known as M/s. Tadikonda Ramulu and A-2 to A-4 are the partners of the said firm having equal shares and they are the wholesale dealers for the distribution of cigarettes manufactured by the complainant for Vijayawada and Guntur. The delivery of the cigarattes has to be taken from the godown situated at Guntur. A-5 is the godown keeper.

4. The complaint against the accused is that a conspiracy took place between A-1 to A-5 and in pursuance of that conspiracy, A-2 and A-3 issued cheques instead of demand drafts, which were described as pay orders by A-5 (god own keeper), by quoting fictitious numbers and A-5, in collusion with the other accused, has accepted the said cheques knowing fully well that they were false and delivered the goods. It is alleged that the fifth accused received 31 cheques from A-2 and A-3, out of which 10 cheques were presented in the bank which were dishonoured. It is further alleged that the other 21 cheques were not even presented to the Bank for collection. It is stated that the fifth accused has intimated to the centralized Marketing office at Secunderabad and the Accounts Office of the complainant at Bangalore that he has received the pay orders.

5. It is on the aforesaid allegations that the de facto complainant filed a complaint at Hyderabad. The Private complaint was filed on 27.4.1986 and after due investigation into the matter, the charge-sheet was filed and the same was registered as C.C. No. 217 of 1987 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad. The case was taken cognizance on 27.4.1987. A-5 filed an application on 15.7.1987 for his discharge and the same was rejected by the Court. Subsequently, an application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings before the Lower Court in Crl. P. No. 1043 of 1987 was filed in this Court and it was admitted on 20.10.1987. The said case came up for hearing on 15.9.1989 and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the case was transferred from X Metropolitan Magistrate to XXI Metropolitan Magistrate on 5.12.1989 and it was re-numbered as C.C. No. 157 of 1989. The accused raised a preliminary objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the court at Hyderabad to decide the case and it was dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 6.8.1991. Then A-5 filed Crl. R.P. No. 268 of 1991 and A-I to A-4 filed Cr. R.P. No. 269 of 1991 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the same were allowed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge on 5.11.1991 and accordingly set aside the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge further held that the Court at Hyderabad has no jurisdiction to try the case and directed the complaint to be presented in the proper Court which has got jurisdiction.

6. Sri C Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners in Crl. R.C. Nos. 44 and 45 of 1992 con tended that the decision relied upon by the revisional Court (II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court) in K.P. Singh vs. Nalanda Sales Cor