JUDGMENT S. Hoda, J. Petitioner has filed this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire criminal proceeding pending against him as well as order dated 18.5.85 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under sections 403, 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) on the complaint case no.18 (c) 85. 2. The prosecution case as it appears from the complaint which is Annexure-1 to this petition is that the Secretary Bihar Text Book Publishing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) vide his order dated 30.1.81 asked M/s Agrawal Printing Press, Ranchi for printing of 3 lacs of books of Bhautiki II (Physics) for class VII. On receipt of such order M/s Agrawal Printing Press through its Proprietor Sushil Kumar Agrawal entered into an agreement with the Corporation on 7.8.81 for printing of the aforesaid books. The said agreement was executed at the office of the Corporation at Budha Marg, Patna by the petitioner. In pursuance of the agreement petitioner was entrusted with 2233 reams of white printing papers and 2 lace of cover papers for printing the books as stated above, vide three separate challans bearing no.1958 dated 8.8.81, 1959 dated 8.8.81 and 1960 dated 8.8.81 which were duly acknowledged by the petitioner. It is further alleged that as there was undue delay in printing of the required number of books, the Corporation with consent of petitioner withdrew the order for one lac of such books and the required number to be printed was only 2 lacs. Due to reduction of printing order from 3 lacs to 2 lacs about 173-428 reams of white printing papers and about 645 cover papers remained as balance with the press. The total price of which is Rs. 22,714. The said quantity of papers of the Corporation was in possession of the petitioner which was required to be returned to the Corporation and as such a direction was sent to the press to return the balance papers or to furnish bank gurantee for Rs 22,714/- in lieu thereof. It is further alleged that inspite of several letters, reminders and personnel follow up in the matter the petitioner did not return the balance papers nor furnish bank gurantee as asked for. It is further alleged that inspite of several letters, reminders and personnel follow up in the matter the petitioner did not return the balance papers nor furnish bank gurantee as asked for. The petitioner went on avoiding the request and deferred the matter by way of evasive reply form time to time with no intention to comply. The petitioner was finally sent a reminder by registred letter on 29.8.83 giving him 15 days notice either to return the papers or to send the bank garantee but this too went in vain. It is further alleged that non-return of the papers of non-furnishing of the bank gurantee has led the Corporation to conclude that the petitioner has dishonestly mis-appropriated the property of the Corporation or converted the same to his own use which has resulted in causing wrongful lose to the Corporation with corresponding wrongful gain to the accused. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid facts it was alleged that the petitioner with dishonest intention comitted criminal breach of trust in respect of the balance papers which had been entrusted to him by the Corporation and thus has committed offence under sections 406/409 of the Code. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after examining the complainant on solemn affirmation held enquiry under section 202 of the Cr. P.C. and examined one witness and after perusal of the materials on the records took cognizance for the offence under sections 403, 406 and 409 of the Cede against the petitioner. 3. Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is misconceived as dispute in question is of civil nature arising out of an agreement and as such the cognizance for the offence against the Petitioner amouts to abuse of the process of court. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the place of occurrence in the complaint has been stated to be at Ranchi and thus the Patna court has no jurisdiction to try the case. 4. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Katriar, learned senior counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 has contended that though the matter arises out of an agreement but the facts discloued in the petition of the complaint clearly makes out an offence for criminal breach of trust. He has further submitted that the court at Patna is competent to try the case. 5. 4. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Katriar, learned senior counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 has contended that though the matter arises out of an agreement but the facts discloued in the petition of the complaint clearly makes out an offence for criminal breach of trust. He has further submitted that the court at Patna is competent to try the case. 5. On the contention of the learned counsel the first question involved in this case is whether the petitioner committed breach of contract or as alleged he had at any stage developed the necessary mens rea to constitute the offence as stated above. 6. Section 403 and 404 of the Code deal with the criminal misappropriation of the property whereas section 405 to 409 of the Code deal with the criminal breach of trust. Section 403 provides for punishment for dishonest misappropriation of property. Section 405 of the Code defines criminal breach of trust and it reads as follows :- Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly mis-appropriates or converts to his own use that propety, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which said trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do commits criminal breach of trust. Section 406 of the Code provides for punishment for criminal breach of trust and section 409 of the Code provides for punishment for criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, Merchant or agent. Thus, in order to fasten the liability of criminal breach of trust, it has to be seen firstly that there must be entrustment to any person with property or any dominion over property and secondly that the person encrusted dishonestly misappropriate, or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property or wilfully suffers any other person so to do in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which trust is to be dischaged or of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust. 7. 7. In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner is that he has committed criminal breach of trust by not returning the balance reams of white printing papers and cover papers which were entrusted to him. The conduct of the petioner has led the Corporation to conclude that he has dishonestly misappropriated the property of the Corporation or converted the same to his own use. Thus from the facts mentioned in the complaint, it is evident that though at the time the entrustment was made to the petitioner there was no intention on his part to dishonestly mis-appropriate or convert to his own use the papers supplied to him by the Corporation but refusal by the petioner inspite of several letters by the Corporation to return the balance reams of white printing papers and cover papers or to account for the same, prima facie show that the offence under section 405 of the Code is made out against the petitioner. In cases of criminal breach of trust the principal ingredient of the offence being dishonest mis-appropriation or conversion, entrustment of property and failure in breath of an obligation to account for the property entrusted may lead to an inference of dishonest misappropriation or conversion. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his calc has relied upon the decisions of sardar singh Vs. State of Haryana 1977 S.C. 1766. In that case the appellant was convicted for the offence under section 409 of the Code. Their lordships of Supreme Court held as follows :- Here, as we have already pointed out, the appellant was admittedly entrusted with the receipt-book or in any event with dominion ever it, but there is no evidence to establish that he dishonestly mis-appropriated the receipt book or converted it to his own use or dishonestly used or disposed of the receipt book. It is quite possible that the appellant might have lost or mislaid the receipt book and hence be might have been unable to return it to the superior authorities. What the section requires is something much more than mere failure or omission to return the receipt-book. The prosectution has to go further and show that the appellant dishonestly misappropriated or converted the receipt book to his own use or dishonestly used or disposed of it. That, we are afraid, the prosecution has net been able to do in the present case. The prosectution has to go further and show that the appellant dishonestly misappropriated or converted the receipt book to his own use or dishonestly used or disposed of it. That, we are afraid, the prosecution has net been able to do in the present case. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant was wrongly convicted under section 409 of the Code." This decision, in my view, does not help the petitioner at this stage. In the aforesaid case, the appellant was convicted and as was held by the Supreme Court, there was no evidence to establish the ingredient of the offence. The present case is at the initial stage and evidence has yet to come. Prima facie the allegation is there that the petitioner was entrusted with certain quantities of reams of white printing papers and cover papers for printing of 3 lac of books and subsequently with the consent of the petitioner the order for one lac of books was withdawn and thus the balance of reams of white printing papers and cover papers as mentioned in the complaint was to be returned back. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred the cases of Om Prakash Singhania and anr. vs. Nawratan Mal Dudhania, 1980 BBBJ 136 and Gajadhar Nath Sen and ors vs. Ramrup Mahto 1981 B.BCJ 257. In both the cases the prosecution was primarily for an offence under section 420 of the Code. In the first case, this court held that it was e a case of more breach of contract for which the complainant had a civil remedy by way of civil suit. In the second case, it was held by this court that in every calc of cheating there is implicit agreement between the parties. If the terms of the agreement are not carried out, it may attract civil as well as criminal consequences. The vital factor to be considered is whether at the time of agreement there was intention to carry out the terms of the agreement or not. If at its inception there was no intention to carry out terms, it would constitute the offence of cheating. The aforesaid two cases, in my view ale not applicable in this case. There is distinction between an offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust. If at its inception there was no intention to carry out terms, it would constitute the offence of cheating. The aforesaid two cases, in my view ale not applicable in this case. There is distinction between an offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust. In the case of cheating the necessary mens rea to constitute the offence must be from the beginning where as in an offence for criminal breach of trusts there may not be necessary mens rea from the beginning but it may develop at any subsequent stage to constitute the offence. 10. The next contention of the learacd counsel for the petitioner is that in the complaint in column no.4 the place of occurrence has been mentioned as Ranchi. Thus, The court at patna has no jurisdiction to try the calc In my view mere mention of place of occurrence in the petition of complaint does not make the case triable at such place From the facts mentioned in the complaint has to be seen as to at which place the case has to be tried. In the complaint, it is clearly mentioned that the office of the Corportion is situated at Patna and that the property which is the subject matter of the offence was received at Patna and it was required to be returned or account for at the office of Corporation at Patna by the petitioner. Section 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for place of trial in case of certain offences and clause 4 of the said lection is as follows :- "Any offence of criminal mis-appropriation or of criminal breach of trust must be enquired into or tried by a court wit bin whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused persons." In the aforesaid provision the words “or was required to be returned or accounted for" mate it abdantaly clear that the court within whose local jurisdiction the property which is the subject of the offence is required to be returned or accounted for by the accused has jurisdiction to try the case. 11. Learned counsel to support his contention has relied on the case reported in 1976 BBCJ 575 Avtar Kaur vs. State. 11. Learned counsel to support his contention has relied on the case reported in 1976 BBCJ 575 Avtar Kaur vs. State. In the aforesaid case, the fact was that a cloth dealer at Buxar purchased some woolen shawls at Srinagar and lave them to commission agent at Amritsar for sending them to him at Buxar. The commission agent at Amrisar packed the shawls and entrusted them with Golden City Booking Agency at Amritsar for sending them at Buxar. The bale of shawls reached Buxer on 28th September, 1966 and the following day cloth dealer went to receive the consignment but finding it loose and single packed, be applied to the Railway authorities for giving open delivery of the bale. The request of the cloth dealer was acceped to by the Railway authorities and he was given open delivery of the bale at Buxar in presence of the Assistant Commercial Superintendent, Dinapur. On opening the bale, it was found that instead of containing shawls, it contained only waste papers and rags. The Assistant Commercial Superintendent, Dinapnr lodged a first information report with Buxar G.R.P.S. On the facts, it was contended that the Buxar court had no jurisdiction to try the offence. The learned Single Judge held that none of the offence were committed at Buxar and such the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance the offence. In my view, the said decision does not help the petitioner. It will be significant to note that the said decision relates to the occurrence that took place in 1966 when the provision of section 181 of the C. P.C., was different from that which is existing at present. The Code of Criminal Procedure was amended in the year 1974 and section 181 clause 2 of the Cr, P.C. as it existed prior to amendment did not contain the words "or was required to be returned or accounted for." As mentioned above in the present case, it has been alleged that the property which is the subject matter of the offence was received at Patna and the same was required to be returned or accounted for at Patna. Thus the court at Patna has jurisdiction to take cognizance and try the case. 12. For the reasons mentioned above, I find no merit in this application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Application dismissed.