ORDER

Mulla, J. - This is an application in revision by one Fateh Singh challenging the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts at Meerut to try a case in which he is charged with an offence u/s 409, Penal Code. The case has been instituted against the applicant and four others upon a complaint made by one Bishamber Sahai in his capacity as the sales manager of a sugar mill styled Ram Luxman Sugar Mill situated in Mohiuddinpur within the district of Meerut. The applicant and his co-accused are alleged to be the proprietors in partnership of a firm styled Jani Singh Dwarka Das which carried on the business of commission agents at Amritsar. As the decision of the question of jurisdiction raised by the applicant turns to a very considerable extent upon the allegations contained in the complaint it is necessary to set them out in extenso. The relevant paragraphs of the complaint are as follows:

1. That the accused as partners of the Firm Jani Singh Dwarka Das were known from before to the proprietors of Ram Luxman Sugar Mills. As such in December 1935, accused 1 and 5 came to Mohiuddinpur as partners and representatives of the firm and the firm was appointed as agents for the sale of "Ram Luxman" brand sugar throughout U.P. and Punjab and Sind.

2. That the conditions of agency were that the accused would collect all the money due to the complainant's mills and render accounts thereof as and when collected at Mohiuddinpur where the mills and its offices are situate.

3. That in pursuance of the said terms the accused did render full and final accounts at Mohiuddinpur for the cane season of 1935-36.

4. That throughout the cane season of 1936-37 the complainant mills supplied sugar in accordance with the orders of the accused and sent all the railway receipts thereof to the accused firm at Amritsar for the purpose of collecting money.

5. That the accused individually and collectively from time to time collected all the moneys due on the railway receipts but did not render any accounts to the complainant in spite of repeated demands.

2. Upon these allegations, a complaint charging the applicant and other proprietors of the firm of Jani Singh Dwarka Das with an offence u/s 409, Penal Code, was filed in the Court of a First Class Magistrate at Meerut. "When the applicant was summoned to answer the charge he at once raised a preliminary objection that the Court at Meerut had no jurisdiction to try the case. The learned Magistrate overruled the objection relying upon the authority of a case decided by this Court which is reported in Brij Lal Vs. Emperor, AIR 1932 All 367 . The applicant then went up in revision to the learned Sessions Judge of Meerut who upheld the order of the learned Magistrate though he pointed out that the case relied upon by the learned Magistrate had been overruled by a subsequent decision of this Court in Kashi Ram Mehta Vs. Emperor . The learned Judge himself relied upon two decisions, one of this Court in Mohru Lal Vs. Emperor, AIR 1936 All 193 and the other of the Oudh Chief Court in Brij Kishore v. Chandrika Prasad AIR(1936) Oudh 329 Aggrieved by that decision the applicant has come up in revision to this Court. The substance of the argument on behalf of the applicant is that having regard to the provisions of Section 181(2), Criminal P. C, the Meerut Court has no jurisdiction and the two cases relied upon by the learned Judge are distinguishable. Having heard the learned Counsel on both sides at considerable length, I have arrived at the conclusion that the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is sound and ought to prevail. It was conceded in the course of argument on either side that the view formerly held that the offence of criminal breach of trust can be tried at a place where loss is caused as a consequence of the offence by virtue of the application of Section 179, Criminal P. C, is no longer good law and that the question in issue has to be decided upon the interpretation of Section 181(2), Criminal