Jurisdiction for criminal breach of trust is determined by the location of misappropriation, not mere account rendering.

1. This is an application under S.561 - A, Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings under S.420 / 406, R. P. C. pending before the Sub-Judge, Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, being taken in the complaint filed by Bhagat Ram, respondent, against the petitioner.

2. The facts which have given rise to this petition are that the respondent filed a complaint under S.420/406, R. P. C. against the petitioner with the allegations that the petitioner was working as an Accountant of K. C. Cinema at Faridabad and he was entrusted with the duty of receiving money on behalf of K. C. Cinema on trust and to dispose of the same in accordance with the instructions of the management of K. C. Cinema. As instructed by them, he had to maintain the accounts and deposit the money received, in the Bank of Baroda Faridabad into the account maintained by the partners of the said Cinema. The account had to be rendered at Jammu, the Head - office of the complainant. It was further contended that the accused with mala fide intention did not complete the ledger and from May 1970 to 7th April, 1971, received monies on trust for the Cinema and did not deposit into the Bank as directed. On preparation of the account the complainant came to know that an amount of Rs. 16104.84 has been misappropriated by the accused. After the recording of the statements of the complainant and one of his witnesses, the trial Magistrate issued process against the petitioner under S.420 / 406, R. P. C. It is at this stage that the petitioner has filed the present petition aggrieved of the order summoning the accused petitioner.

3. The main plea of the petitioner is that, according to the allegations given in the complaint the alleged offence of criminal preach of trust will be deemed to be committed at Faridabad, the courts at Jammu have no jurisdiction to try the complaint. Secondly it is contended that on a bare reading of the complaint it shows that no offence under S.420, R. P. C. is made out.

4. Mr. Kotwal, appearing for the petitioner, read before me the complaint and the statement of the witnesses and argued that none of the ingredients of S.420, R. P. C. are made out. According to him, it is essential to make out an offence under S.420, R. P. C. that the complainant is made to deliver any property to the accused on the latter 's representation. In the present case, there was neither such representation nor the money was delivered in consequence of the same. So the trial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to issue process under the abovesaid section.

5. As regards the offence under S.406, R. P. C. was concerned, he argued that the entrustment took place at Faridabad. The direction to deposit the money in the Bank of Baroda, Faridabad was violated there. The offence, if any, became complete at Faridabad. The Courts, at a place where the accounts are to be rendered, have no jurisdiction to try the complaint, as the rendering of account forms no part of the offence of criminal breach of trust. As the trial Magistrate had inherent lack of jurisdiction so the order issuing the process and the whole proceedings should be quashed by using the inherent power of the Court. Regarding the above - said proposition that rendering of accounts at a place does not give jurisdiction to try a complaint under S.406, R. P. C. Mr. Kotwal relied on the following decisions:
1. 1970 Unreported Judgments (SC) 412.
2. AIR 1957 SC 196 : (1957 Cri LJ 322).
3. AIR 1956 All 610 : (1956 Cri LJ 1156).
4. AIR 1948 Nag 80 : (49 Cri LJ 121).

6. Mr. Sehgal, appearing for the respondent, raised twofold contentions. Firstly he argued that the petitioner should have moved the trial Magistrate and should have asked him to decide the issu