R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS application is filed against the order of the lower court rejecting the preliminary contention of the petitioners regarding jurisdiction of the trial court. ( 2 ) THE contention of the petitioners who manufacture and market insecticides is that no offence is alleged to have been committed by these petitioners within the jurisdiction of the trial court at Valia District Bharuch and hence the complaint as against them was required to be dismissed. ( 3 ) THE first petitioner is the manufacturer and the second petitioner is its sister concern marketing the goods manufactured by the first petitioner. They are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the Criminal Case. Accused No. 3 is the distributor and accused No. 4 is the Manager of the Valia Taluka Co-op. Purchase and Sale Union Valia. It is the case of the complainant in para. 7 of the complaint that accused No. 1 who is the manufacturer of the insecticides had sold misbranded insecticides (D. D. T. 10% dust) to accused No. 4 through accused Nos. 2 and 3. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 had sold the goods in question to accused No. 2 in Ahmedabad and accused No. 2 had sold the goods to accused No. 3 at Broach and accused No. 3 had sold the goods to accused No. 1 in Valia and therefore petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 had no concern in the last sale that had taken place at Valia and therefore they cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offence of manufacture or of sale in the court at Valia. ( 4 ) THESE two petitioners had earlier filed Special Criminal Application No. 307/81 and the same was withdrawn on 30th June 1981 Thereafter on 5th September 1981 the petitioners had given an application to the trial court raising similar preliminary contention and requesting the trial court to dismiss the complaint against them. The learned Magistrate rejected that application on the ground that the offending insecticides had been sold in Valia and therefore the court had jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate further observed that the application was made very late after about a year when the prosecution was ready with its evidence and the statement of the accused was already recorded. The learned Magistrate rejected that application on the ground that the offending insecticides had been sold in Valia and therefore the court had jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate further observed that the application was made very late after about a year when the prosecution was ready with its evidence and the statement of the accused was already recorded. ( 5 ) THE petitioners had carried the matter by way of Criminal Revision Application No. 77/81 to the Sessions Court at Broach. That application is also rejected and the learned Additional Sessions Judge took the view that since the sale of the offending goods has taken place at Valia the Valia Court has got the jurisdiction. Being aggrieved thereby these two petitioners have preferred this petition under Article 227. ( 6 ) SECTION 29 of the Insecticides Act 1968 provides that whoever (a) imports manufactures sells stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes any insecticide deemed to be misbranded under sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (iii) or sub-clause (viii) of clause (k) of Section 3 shall be punishable as provided in that Section. Thus manufacture sale stock for sale or exhibiting for sale or distribution are offences punishable under that Section. Under Section 177 Cri. P. C. every offence shall ordinarily he inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. In the present case admittedly the offence of manufacture is committed in Ahmedabad district. There is no allegation that any part of manufacturing activity was carried on elsewhere. Therefore for the offence of manufacture Valia court does not have any jurisdiction. ( 7 ) HOWEVER as regards the offence of sale of misbranded goods the offence would take place wherever the goods are sold stocked for sale or exhibited for sale or distributed by the accused. In the present case the allegation in the complaint is that accused No. 1 sold to accused No. 4 at Valia through accused Nos. 2 and 3. Therefore the allegation in the complaint discloses prima facie the offence of sale by accused Nos. 1 and 2 at Valia and therefore Valia court has jurisdiction to try the petitioners for that offence at Valia. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to two judgments of this court one is. The State of Gujarat v. Agro-Chemical and Animal and Another 1980 Cri. L. J. 516. 1 and 2 at Valia and therefore Valia court has jurisdiction to try the petitioners for that offence at Valia. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to two judgments of this court one is. The State of Gujarat v. Agro-Chemical and Animal and Another 1980 Cri. L. J. 516. In that case the court distinguished the two offences of manufacture and sale and held that:. ". . the offence constituted by any of these acts viz. acts of selling offering for sale stocking exhibiting for sale or distributing fertilisers of sub-standard quality may be inquired into and tried either at the place where the said act was done or at the place where the original act of manufacture was done". Thus so far as the offence relating to sale offering for sale stocking exhibiting for sale or distribution of sub-standard fertiliser is concerned the same may be inquired into at Jetpur if any of the said acts had taken place within the jurisdiction of that court or at Baroda where the act of manufacture was done. and the trial court was directed under Section 201 Cri. P. C. to return the complaint so far as that offence of manufacture was concerned for presentation before the proper court with endorsement to that effect. ( 9 ) THE second judgment is in the case of Rallis India Limited v. Prahladbhai Kesubhai Patel and Others in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1544 of 1981 decided by V. V. Bedarkar J. on 10th December 1982 In that case in the complaint the allegations were made so far as the manufacture was concerned. The complainant in that case averred that the accused manufactured and sold the misbranded articles at Ahmedabad and the sale according to the complainant also took place only at Ahmedabad. In view of those averments in the complaint the prosecution of the manufacturer for the manufacture and sale at Ahmedabad could be tried only at Ahmedabad and hence it was held that Idar Court had no jurisdiction to try the case against those accused and therefore the trial court was directed to return the complaint so far as those accused were concerned for presentation to the proper court with an endorsement to that effect. ( 10 ) IN the present case it is admitted and it is clear that the offence of manufacture has not taken place in Broach District but has taken place in Ahmedabad District and therefore the criminal court at Valia cannot have jurisdiction to try the petitioners for that offence in that court and therefore the complaint so far as the offence of manufacture is concerned will have to be returned for presentation to the proper court. However as regards the sale of misbranded goods in view of the allegations in the complaint that accused No. 1 sold to accused No. 4 through accused Nos. 2 and 3 it cannot be said that Valia court has no jurisdiction to try the petitioners for the said offence. Therefore the present application so far as the offence of sale is concerned has to be dismissed. ( 11 ) IN the result the application is partly allowed and it is directed that the complaint against the petitioners so far as the offence of manufacture of misbranded insecticides is concerned he returned to the complainant for presentation to the proper court with an endorsement to that effect under Section 201 Cri. P. C. The application so far as the offence of sale of mis-branded insecticides is concerned shall proceed in Valia court against the petitioners and other accused. Rule made absolute accordingly. Rule made absolute. .