ORDER The complaint out of which this revision petition arose was presented by one Dwaraka Prasad of Imphal against (1) Sohal Singh, (2) Nasiruddin and (3) Puran Singh all of Imphal, in the Court of the District Magistrate, Imphal, on the allegations that he entrusted 93 bags of chillies to the accused persons at Imphal for being carried to Gauhati and to be delivered to one Ajit Singh of Gauhati. The accused left with the goods the same day for Gauhati but failed to deliver the goods to Ajit Singh and on enquiry the complainant learnt that the accused persons had dishonestly disposed of and mis-appropriated the price of the goods. The District Magistrate forwarded the complaint to Sri Basiruddin Ahamad, E. A. C. and First Class Magistrate, Imphal, who examined the complainant and registered the case under section 407 of the I. P. C., and ordered issue of process against the accused persons. 2It might be mentioned at this stage that other Magistrates in Manipur except those mentioned in section 190 of the Cr. P. C. have not been specially empowered to take cognizance of offences and that is why the complaint was presented to the District Magistrate. 3After about 10 days the complainant presented another petition (dated 9-11-54) in the Court of the D. M., by which he informed the Court that the mis-appropriated goods were sold by the accused to Bhuramull Motilal of Palasbari, Gauhati, who had purchased the goods after having reason to believe that the same were stolen property and was, therefore, guilty of an offence punishable under section 411 I. P.C., and issue of process was prayed for against him. It appears that this was treated as a fresh complaint of an offence under section 411 I. P. C., and as will be seen later it could not but be so treated, and was forwarded to the same Magistrate, namely, Sri Basiruddin Ahamad. The forwarding endorsement on this petition or complaint runs thus :- "To Sri Basiruddin Ahamad, E. A. C. for disposal. The forwarding endorsement on this petition or complaint runs thus :- "To Sri Basiruddin Ahamad, E. A. C. for disposal. T. C. Tiankham, 10-11-54 Senior E. A. C. for D. M." 4It will be thus seen that cognizance of this second complaint was not taken by the District Magistrate, but by an E. A. C. (who is also a Magistrate of the First Class) on behalf of the District Magistrate, who had no power to take cognizance under section 190 for reasons already stated. 5Sri Basiruddin Ahamad then examined the complainant and directed issue of process against Bhuramull Motilal. On 21-1-55, the complainant filed another application stating that Bhuramull Motilal was a firm and the present petitioner Rameshwarlal, S/o Bhuramull was its proprietor and the warrant should issue against him. The Magistrate granted this application and a warrant of arrest was issued against Rameshwarlal, the present petitioner. 6The case was later transferred to another Magistrate, but the enquiry has not yet commenced due to some of the accused remaining absent on certain dates. 7The contentions advanced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this revision petition for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner are namely:- "(i) That in the circumstances no proper cognizance was taken against the petitioner and Sri Ahamad had no power to issue a process against the petitioner, (ii) That the alleged offence under section 411 having been admittedly committed at Gauhati in Assam, no Magistrate exercising powers in the Union Territory of Manipur was competent to take cognizance against the petitioner." 8From the facts already stated it will be clear that the alleged offence under section 407, committed by the first 3 accused persons and the alleged offence under section 411 committed by the petitioner were two separate and distinct offences and were committed at Gauhati, that is, outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Magistrates concerned. It, therefore, goes without saying that the offence under section 411 alleged against the petitioner was not covered by the first complaint against the other 3 accused persons, and if the complainant wanted to proceed against the petitioner under section 411, it was necessary to file a separate complaint in respect of it. Thus the petition dated 9-11-54. It, therefore, goes without saying that the offence under section 411 alleged against the petitioner was not covered by the first complaint against the other 3 accused persons, and if the complainant wanted to proceed against the petitioner under section 411, it was necessary to file a separate complaint in respect of it. Thus the petition dated 9-11-54. presented by the complainant was nothing but a complaint, and it was also treated as such by Sri Basiruddin Ahamad, as will be clear from his order in the order sheet dated 11-11-54. 9But as already seen the cognizance on this complaint was not taken by the District Magistrate but by a Magistrate purporting to act on his behalf, who was not empowered to take cognizance under section 190 and to transfer the case to another Magistrate under section 192. Sri Basiruddin Ahamad did not, therefore, get any jurisdiction over that complaint and under the law the position was the same as if there was no complaint in respect of this offence, under section 411, before Sri Basiruddin Ahamad. 10In that case also, the learned Government Advocate, relying on Province of Bihar v. Bhim Bera, ATR 1947 Pat. 284 (A), urged that the first complaint under section 407 having been lawfully transferred to Sri Basiruddin Ahamad, he was competent to issue a process against the petitioner, as he did. It is true and uncontrovertible that once cognizance has been taken by the proper Magistrate and the case has been transferred to another Magistrate then the transferee Magistrate has full seisin of the case and fan issue process against new persons also whom he may find concerned in the offence. This is obviously so because cognizance is taken of the offence and not of individual offenders but that does not mean, nor is the Patna case an authority for the proposition that the transferee Magistrate can on the strength of the complaint transferred to him, take cognizance of a totally different offence when he cannot exercise that power under section 190. The reason is simple, for to place any other construction or to take any other view would be tantamount to setting at naught, the restrictions imposed by section 190. Here the offenee against the petitioner was a separate offence and Sri Basiruddin Ahamad, was not therefore, competent to issue process against the petitioner. The reason is simple, for to place any other construction or to take any other view would be tantamount to setting at naught, the restrictions imposed by section 190. Here the offenee against the petitioner was a separate offence and Sri Basiruddin Ahamad, was not therefore, competent to issue process against the petitioner. 11But in any case action could not be taken against the petitioner by a Court exercising jurisdiction within the Union Territory of Manipur, and therefore also the proceedings taken against the petitioner are without jurisdiction and therefore illegal. 12Chapter 15 of the Cr. P. C. lays down the jurisdiction of the Magistrates as regards the place of trial, and under clause (2) of section 181, the offence of Criminal breach of trust can be enquired 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 persons or the offence was committed. As already seen in the present case, the offence was committed at Gauhati, which is outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of any Magistrate of Manipur. But because the property was handed over by the complainant at Imphal within Manipur. the offence under section 407. can be tried at Imphal. But the same does not apply to the offence under section 411. 13The jurisdiction as regards the offence under section 411 would be governed by section 180 under which that offence can be enquired into or tried by a Magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction either the offence under section 407 or the offence under section 411 was committed. That place is cleanly Gauhati, that is, a place outside the jurisdiction of the Courts of Manipur. Illustration (b) under section 180 would also make that point clear. 14Section 239 permits a joint trial of persons accused of different offences, if certain conditions are present. But that section does not and cannot override the provision as regards the jurisdiction laid down in Chapter 15 and must be read subject to the provisions of section 180 in the present case. 15The result is that the proceedings against the petitioner are without jurisdiction and illegal and must be set aside. Those proceedings in the Court of the Magistrate, as far as the petitioner is concerned are accordingly quashed. Petition allowed.