JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J.:— This case has been reported by the Sessions Judge of Jhansi, with the recommendation that the commitment, of the accused Baldewa and Radhua to that Court on a charge of robbery be quashed. 2. It has been found that the place where the robbery is said to have been committed is outside British territory. The accused are alleged to have brought the stolen property into British territory and to have been in possession of it within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of Session at Jhansi. One of the accused Baldewa is not a British subject. The other accused Radhua is a subject of His Majesty, but no certificate under section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been obtained in regard to him. The learned Sessions Judge is of opinion that under the circumstances neither of the accused can be tried by a Court in British India for the offence of robbery. 3. The learned Assistant Government Advocate has addressed to us two contentions; first, that under the provisions of section 181, sub-section (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused may be tried by the Sessions Court at Jhansi as they were possessed of the stolen property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of that Court; and, secondly, that the accused may be charged with and tried for the offence of retaining stolen property punishable under section 411 of the Penal Code, 1860. The questions raised are not free from difficulty, and we therefore took time to consider our judgment. We are of opinion that section 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to the case of an offence committed by a person who is not a British subject outside British territory. It seems to us that the section is intended to regulate the jurisdiction of Court in British India in respect of offences committed in British India and cannot vary or abrogate the ordinary rule that no foreign subject shall be tried in British India for an offence committed outside British India. We agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the accused cannot be tried by him for the offence of robbery. It remains to consider whether there should be a trial for retaining stolen property under section 411. Property stolen outside of ??? We agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the accused cannot be tried by him for the offence of robbery. It remains to consider whether there should be a trial for retaining stolen property under section 411. Property stolen outside of ??? India is “stolen property as defined by the code, and if the evidence be true, the property was “retained” in British India. It may, however, be urged on the authority of the King-Emperor v. Johri, [1901] I.L.R., 23 All, 266. the case mentioned in the reference) that as Baldewa was the actual thief, he cannot be convicted of retaining the property under section 411. We think that the facts of the present case distinguish it from the case mentioned. In our view if the case for the prosecution is true, Baldewa first committed an offence punishable under the law of India when he retained the stolen property in British India. If the theft had been committed in British India, there would have been no “retention” of stolen property within the meaning of the section. The possession of the property would have been merely a continual of the original wrongful taking, and it would be absurd to contend that when a theft is committed, the thief commits a new offence under section 411, every moment of time he continues in possession of the stolen property. In the case of Queen-Empress v. Abdul Latib, [1885] I.L.R., 10 Bom., 186. the facts were quite similar to the present case, and the Court held that the accused could be convicted under section 411. We are of opinion that the learned Sessions Judge should frame a charge against both the accused under section 411 of the Penal Code, 1860 and try them for that offence. If at the trial he be of opinion upon the evidence before him that the charge has not been established against the accused or either of them, it would be his duty to acquit the accused who is found to be not guilty. At the present stage of the proceedings we cannot quash the commitment as regards either of them.