The provisions of Section 181(2) and Section 239(e) of the CrPC can be invoked to confer jurisdiction on a court to try an offence of receiving stolen property, even if the offence was committed outside the court's territorial jurisdiction.

D. S. DAVE, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision application by one Vinod Kumar, under Section 439 of the code of Criminal Procedure and it arises in the following circumstances.

( 2 ) THE non-petitioner No. 2 Prabhudayal filed in the Court of Additional Munsif-11-1965. It was stated by him that on 24-7-1965 Rakesh Kumar had obtained from him one transistor on hire on the condition that he would pay Rs. 5 per day for its use, but he failed to pay the amount which was due from him and further failed to return the transistor. It was alleged by the complainant that when he demanded the amount and asked for the return of the transistor from Rakesh kumar, the latter replied that he had pledged it with one Nathmal Bubna, proprietor, Sharda Hotel, Chandpole Gate, Jaipur, since he was in need of money. It was, therefore, prayed by the complainant that since the accused had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the radio which was entrusted to him, he should be punished for an. offence under Section 406, I. P. C.

( 3 ) ON 28-2-1966 he presented another complaint before the same Court. In that complaint it was stated that although the Court had issued a search, warrant for the recovery of the transistor, accused Vinod Kumar manoeuvred against its recovery, that he had filed a suit against Rakesh Kumar, obtained a decree and got the transistor auctioned in execution of the decree, that Vinod Kumar had dishonestly received the stolen property from Rakesh Kumar knowing it to be stolen and, therefore, Vinod Kumar should also be tried along with Rakesh Kumar for an offence under Section 411, I. P. C.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the above complaint, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence hnder Section 411, I. P. C. , against Vinod Kumar also and ordered bailable warrant to be issued against him. Against this order dated 28-2-1966, Vinod kumar filed a revision application in the Court of Sessions Judge, Bikaner. It was argued on his behalf in that Court that no prima facie case under Section 411, i. P. C. , was made out against him and the Magistrate ought not to have ordered warrant to be issued against him. This argument was repelled by the learned Sessions Judge by observing that it is an offence to keep an unlicensed radio, that the licence of the radio was in the name of the complainant Prabhu Dayal, that Vinod Kumar had received the property knowing that there was no licence in the name of Rakesh Kumar and, under the circumstances, it could not be said that there was no prima facie case against the accused. With these observations, he dismissed the revision application. Not being satisfied with this order, Vinod Kumar filed a revision application in this Court. The application in this Court is based on a totally different ground which relates to alleged lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial Court.

( 5 ) SMT. Renu Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that on the complainants own showing, even the offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust alleged against Rakesh Kumar took place at Jaipur and not at Bikaner, because, according to the complainant himself, although the transistor was received by accused Rakesh Kumar at Bikaner, it was not alleged if rakeshkumar intended to commit criminal breach of trust so long as he was at bikaner. All that was alleged by the complainant was that when Rakesh Kumar went to Jaipur and when he was in need of money, he pledged it with the proprietor of Sharda Hotel. Learned counsel proceeds to say that the offence alleged against Vinod Kumar is also said to have been committed by him at Jaipur and that although the Magistrate at Bikaner could take cognizance of the offence against Rakesh Kumar by virtue of the specific provisions of Section 181 (2) of the code of Criminal Procedure, he could not try a case against the petitioner Vinod kumar at Bikaner because the offence of receiving stolen property, if at all, was committed at Jaipur and t