JUDGMENT 1. In this case we think that the Rule should be made absolute. The charge is one under sec. 408 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused, that he being a clerk or servant and being entrusted in such capacity with property committed breach of trust. 2. Apparently, the collection of the money in respect of which the breach of trust is alleged to have been committed was at certain places in 24-Perganas, such as Tarulia and Jagatpur; and there is no doubt that if the facts which are alleged before us are made out, the Court, within the local limits of which any part of the property was received or retained, would have jurisdiction. 3. It has been argued by Mr. Hazra on behalf of the Crown that inasmuch as it is alleged that part of the duty of the accused arising out of the contract between the parties was to pay over the money in Calcutta, therefore the alleged offence was not complete until he failed to pay over the money in Calcutta; and therefore quite apart from sec. 179, the Calcutta Court had jurisdiction. 4. Then he relies also on sec. 179. Now, on the facts of this case--and this case only--we are of opinion that there is some doubt as to whether the Calcutta Court would have jurisdiction; and, consequently, we intend to exercise the jurisdiction which is given to us in this case under sec. 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and we decide that the case shall be enquired into and tried by the Court at Barasat, which is within the 24-Parganas.