These are two revision petitions arising out of two different casesin which the petitioner, who was the accused in both the cases, was convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Palghat, under section 409, Indian Penal Code. The convictions, on appeal, were confirmed by the Sessions Judge of South Malabar.

The petitioner was running a bank called the Malabar Central Bank with its head office at Chowghat and a branch office at Orumanayur, both places being situated in British India. The charge against him in both the cases was that he received gold ornaments from different persons by way of pledge and after doing so, sub-pledged them for higher amounts to other banks. According to the prosecution, these amounted to acts of criminal breach of trust as in sub-pledging the jewels, and that for higher amounts, the petitioner must be deemed to have acted with dishonest intention. This view prevailed in both the Courts below. At the appellate stage, an objection was raised to the convictions on the ground that since the sub-pledging had been done by the petitioner with the Savings and Investments Corporation, Limited, at Trichur, which is situated in the State of Cochin, the British Indian Courts had no jurisdiction to try the accused. This objection is based upon the provisions of section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code as amended by Act XVIII of 1923. The material portion of section 188 runs thus:

". . . . When any British subject commits an offence in the territories of any native Prince or Chief in India .... he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within British India at which he may be found: Provided that notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter no charge as to any such offence shall be inquired into in British India unless the Political Agent, if there one, for the territory in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, certifies that, in his opinion, the charge ought to be inquired into in British India; and, where there is no Political Agent, the sanction of the Provincial Government shall be required. . . . ”

The words italicized were added by the Amending Act of 1923 and the purpose of that amendment will be set forth presently. The learned Sessions Judge negatived this contention relying upon section 181(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which is to the following effect:

“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.”

Referring to this sub-section, the learned Sessions Judge” held that the articles which are the subject of the offence were received by the appellant either at Orumanayur or at Chowghat and that consequently the trial Court had jurisdiction. He was of the opinion that in view of the express provision contained in section 181(2), section 188 had no application and he pointed out that a contrary view would lead to the result that Courts in British India would be absolutely powerless if the offender disposes of property taken from British India in an adjoining Native State. On a consideration of the judicial precedents as they stood before the amendment introduced in the proviso to section 188 of the Code and the scope of the amendment which was enacted expressly for the purpose of overcoming the effect of those decisions and the decisions that have been given after the amendment, I am of opinion that the objection as to want of jurisdiction in the trial Court to try the accused in this matter must be upheld. I would refer only to one of the decisions prior to the amendment. In the Assistant Sessions Judge, North Arcot v. Ramaswami Asari1, it was held by Sadasiva Ayyar and Spencer, JJ., in a case where a person A entrusted three jewels to the accused at Vello