Order.- The petitioner, who is an accused in C.C. No. 331 of 1970 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (I Court), Bangalore, contended, even before the trial commenced, that the said Court had no jurisdiction to try the case. The lower Court rejected that contention reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to agitate the question of territorial jurisdiction after the evidence came to be recorded in the case and in case such agitation of the question was justifiable This petition is directed against this order. 2. The facts necessary may be briefly narrated as follows: The petitioner was a sales assistant in an electric shop styled as "Prakash electricals" run by K.C. Uppal, C.W.1. C.W.1 bad deputed the petitioner to Kanpur and Ludiyana, amongst other places on the business of the firm. C.W.2 Anandakumar at Kanpur had to pay certain sum to the firm. He paid an amount of Rs. 100 to the petitioner at Kanpur on 9tb May, 1968. A receipt was issued by the petitioner. C.W.3 Shivakumar Uppal at Ludiyana had to pay certain amount to the firm and he paid Rs. 360 on 18th April, 1968 to the petitioner at Ludiyana. The petitioner issued a receipt for that amount also. As the said amounts were not accounted for by the petitioner to the firm of C.W.1 at Bangalore, C.W.1 complained and a charge-sheer alleging an offence under section 408 of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the petitioner in the said Court. On receiving the copies of the documents furnished to the petitioner under section 173(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code and when the trial was about to be commenced, the petitioner raised objection on the point of jurisdiction of the Court. 3. On receiving the copies of the documents furnished to the petitioner under section 173(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code and when the trial was about to be commenced, the petitioner raised objection on the point of jurisdiction of the Court. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the material put forward by the prosecution shows that entrustment of the amounts belonging to the firm of C.W.1 at Bangalore, was made to the petitioner at two places which are Kanpur and Ludiyana, that no material has been produced to indicate as to where, according to the prosecution, the petitioner committed the offence of criminal breach of trust; that the prosecution has not alleged that this offence was committed by the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (I Court) at Bangalore; and that, therefore, the jurisdiction to try the case would vest in a Court either at Kanpur or at Ludiyana in regard to the said two amounts, because it was at those places that the petitioner had been entrusted with the said funds. Under section 181(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deals directly with jurisdiction of Courts in dealing with offences of criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust, it is laid down that the jurisdiction is with the Court within the jurisdiction of which entrustment of the funds is alleged to have taken place or with the Court within the jurisdiction of which the said two offences are alleged to have been committed. 4. The argument on behalf of the State is that the petitioner was, according to the prosecution, entrusted with these sums belonging to the firm of C.W.1 in his capacity as a sales assistant and he was required to account for these sums to the office of the firm at Bangalore, but be has failed to so account and as such non-accounting is the consequence of the act committed by the petitioner, and therefore, the said Court in Bangalore has jurisdiction. Reliance was sought to be placed on the provisions found in section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. Reliance was sought to be placed on the provisions found in section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. Section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as follows: "When a person is accused of the commission of any offence by reason of anything which has been done, and of any consequence which has ensued, such offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any such thing has been done, or any such consequence has ensued." What is clear on a plain reading of this provision is that the Court having jurisdiction over the area in which a person is accused of the commission of any offence, for having done certain acts by reason of which such an offence has been committed and the Court having jurisdiction over any area in which the consequences of such an act have ensued, have both jurisdiction to try the said offence. The illustrations to section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code make it abundantly clear that the consequence contemplated under section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be a direct consequence of the act committed by the accused concerned and which constitutes an offence. If a person is wounded at a place ‘A’ by the accused and that person travels to a place ‘B’ and dies there, then the Court either at ‘A’ or at ‘B’ will have the jurisdiction to try the accused for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The offence of criminal breach of trust as defined in section 405 of the Indian Penal Code consists of entrustment of property or dominion over property and dishonest misappropriation or conversion to one’s own use or user or disposal of such property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which the trust is to be discharged or in violation of any legal contract, express or implied, touching the discharge of such trust, etc. It is, therefore, clear that the ingredients necessary to complete an offence of criminal breach of trust are: entrustment of property or dominion over property in a particular person and such person dishonestly dealing with the property resulting in the effects narrated in section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. It is, therefore, clear that the ingredients necessary to complete an offence of criminal breach of trust are: entrustment of property or dominion over property in a particular person and such person dishonestly dealing with the property resulting in the effects narrated in section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. Unless both the ingredients are complied with, no offence of criminal breach of trust can be said to have been committed. It is, therefore, in my opinion evident that non-accounting of the funds entrusted to a person cannot be said to be a consequence falling within the meaning of section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code. At the most, it is a consequence of the commission of the offence of criminal breach of trust by the person concerned. Non-accounting of the funds entrusted to a person, no doubt, provides convincing evidence to prove that such person has, in fact, dishonestly converted the entrusted funds to his own use so as to bring him within the ambit of section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it is to be held that the contention put forward by the State is not sustainable in law. This view finds support from the decisions of the High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta and Allahabad. In Re Jivandas Savchand1, it is held that although loss to the principal or employer may be the usual and the normal result of criminal breach of trust, it is neither the necessary ingredient nor even the necessary consequence of the offence of criminal breach of trust, because it is the act itself which in law amounts to the offence apart from any such consequence and, therefore, the jurisdiction to try an offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust is governed by section 181(2) and not by sect ion 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In Debendra Nath Sen v. Rajendra Chandra Roy2, it is held that in a case of criminal breach of trust, failure to account is often convincing evidence of the act of misappropriation but not an incident of the said Act, and non-submission of an account being not an integral part of an act of misappropriation it cannot be said that the offence took place not only at the place where the misappropriation took place, but also at the place where the accounts were not rendered. The same view is expressed in Hiralal v. State3. The same view is expressed in Hiralal v. State3. The recent decision on this point is the one reported in B. Patnaik v. A.A. Brinnand.4The decision reported in Jivandas, Savchand In re.1 has been referred to with approval, in the other decision cited above. Moreover, it is abundantly clear that the Criminal Procedure Code itself has taken the offences of criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust out of the ambit of section 179 and placed 1 hem in section 181. It is another reason why it cannot be contended that such a case is governed by the provisions of section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 181(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code reads 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.” A reading of this provision shows that the Court, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction entrustment of the property in question has taken place or the offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust has been committed, has jurisdiction to try the offences. It is, certain, and same is the view expressed by the various High Courts in the decisions already narrated in the preceding paragraphs, that non-rendering of the accounts by a person, accused of an offence of criminal breach of trust, is not the same thing as committing the offence of criminal breach of trust. Therefore, it cannot be contended by the State that it is by virtue of this provision that the Court at Bangalore has jurisdiction to try the case. The learned Government Pleader lastly placed reliance on the provision found in section 182 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The said provision reads as follows: “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.” He urged that the charge-sheet in this case did not allege that the offence of criminal breach of trust had been committed by the petitioner either at Kanpur or at Ludiyana. it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.” He urged that the charge-sheet in this case did not allege that the offence of criminal breach of trust had been committed by the petitioner either at Kanpur or at Ludiyana. He pointed out that it was not the specific case of the prosecution that the petitioner had committed the offence in question in any particular place, and as far as the prosecution is concerned, the place in which the offence of criminal breach of trust is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is uncertain, and might be at Bangalore also. He contended that this case is governed by the above provision in section 182 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He placed reliance on the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. K.P. Ghiara1. In my opinion, this contention is sound. It is held by the Supreme Court that the provision found in section 182 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is a specific provision and not a general principle of law and it is supplemental to the third clause of section 181(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is also held therein that in view of the facts found in that case, it was apparent that the prosecution had not alleged that the embezzlement had taken place in Bombay itself; that the place of embezzlement was uncertain; and that, therefore, the Court at Nagpur had the jurisdiction to try the case. The same reasoning applies, on all fours, to the facts and the circumstances available in this case. In view of the foregoing reason, it is held that the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, I Court, Bangalore, has jurisdiction to try this case. This revision Petition is dismissed. S.V.S. ----- Revision Petition dismissed.