JUDGMENT Mulla, J. - This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Meerut which arises in the following circumstances: One Fakir Chand is a zamindar at "Meerut who owns some zamindari property in the district of Bulandshahr. Brahma Datt was appointed by him as his agent or karinda for the collection of rents at Bulandshahr. Fakir Chand filed a com-plaint against Brahma Datt alleging that the latter made collections at Bulandshahr but did not pay the amount so collected by him to the complainant at Meerut. It was Specifically alleged in the complaint that it was the duty of Brahma Datt to pay the amount collected by him from the tenants at Bulandshahr to the complainant at Meerut. The camplaint was heard by a Special Magistrate who framed a charge against Brahma Datt, but subsequently it appears that counsel for Brahma Datt, raised a question of jurisdiction. It was contended that the offence of criminal breach of trust alleged to have been committed by Brahma Datt was completed in the district of Bulandshahr and hence the Magistrate at Meerut had no jurisdiction to try the offence. In a cryptic order the Special Magistrate held that he had no jurisdiction and consequently dis-missed the complaint which he had no power to do seeing that he himself found that he had no jurisdiction in the matter. When the case went up to the learned Sessions Judge at Meerut, it was argued before him that it was only the High Court which could set aside the order passed by the Special Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge of Meerut has in these circumstances made a reference to this Court for having the order passed by the Special Magistrate dismissing the complaint for want of jurisdiction set aside. The learned Sessions Judge has found that upon the facts alleged it cannot be said definitely where the offence was committed and it might well have been committed in the district of Meerut. He has, therefore, recommended that the order passed by the Special Magistrate should be set aside. 2. The Learned Counsel for the Crown accepts the force of the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge. Learned Counsel for Brahma Datt, however, contends that the offence must be deemed to have been completed in the district of Bulandshahr and hence the trial can take place only in that district and nowhere else. 3. 2. The Learned Counsel for the Crown accepts the force of the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge. Learned Counsel for Brahma Datt, however, contends that the offence must be deemed to have been completed in the district of Bulandshahr and hence the trial can take place only in that district and nowhere else. 3. Reference was made by Learned Counsel to Section 181 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which runs as follows: 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. 4. Learned Counsel contends that in this case all that is clear and certain is that the property which is the subject of the charge against Brahma Datt was received and retained at Bulandshahr. That does not, however, help his argument. Section 181 (2) itself contemplates two places of trial, one where the property which is the subject of the charge is received or retained and the other where the offence is committed. The question really is whether it can be said upon the facts that the offence was committed at Bulandshahr and it was there that the property which is the subject of the charge was received and retained. 1 find that it is quite impossible upon the facts of the case to find definitely that the offence was committed at Bulandshahr. It might very well have been committed at Meerut. Brahma Datt was the agent of the complainant and he was authorised to receive and retain the money collected by him at Bulandshahr. It cannot be contended that merely by receiving and retaining that money he committed any offence. According to the complaint, it was his duty to pay that money to the complainant at Meerut and this he failed to do. It is true that it cannot definitely be said that the offence must have been committed at Meerut, for it may be that after receiving and retaining the money at Bulandshahr he decided to convert it dishonestly to his own use and thus Committed the offence there. Oa the other hand the possibility that be committed the offence at Meerut cannot be totally eliminated. Oa the other hand the possibility that be committed the offence at Meerut cannot be totally eliminated. When such a case of doubt arises, it is clearly Section 182 of the Criminal Procedure Code which comes into operation. Section 182 lays down that when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, ...it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 5. Learned Counsel for Brahma Datt referred me to the Full Bench case of Kashi Ram Mehta v. Emperor1, in support of his contention, but I find that in that case itself it was held by the learned Judges that in cases of criminal misappropriation or breach of trust where there is considerable difficulty in ascertaining the exact place where or the exact point of time when the offence was in fact committed, S. 182 would apply. 6. I am definitely of the opinion that upon the facts of the present case Section 182 Criminal Procedure Code is the proper section to be applied and the Court of the Magistrate at Meerut did possess jurisdiction to try the offence. 7. The result, therefore, is that I accept this reference and setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the Magistrate on the 23rd of October, 1944, direct that the complaint shall be restored to its original number and be disposed of in accordance with the law.