Judgment : 1. The petitioner has come up with the present petition to withdraw the case in C.C.No.108 of 2008 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Tambaran, Chennai and transfer the same to the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Tirunelveli. 2. In the petition, it has been inter alia stated that the petitioner is A1 in C.C.No.108 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court at Tambaram, which arose out of a complaint lodged by one Chakravarthi Daniel - the 2nd respondent herein against the petitioner herein and two others before the 1st respondent, who, on the basis of the said complaint, registered first information report in Crime No.126 of 2007. 3. Case of the prosecution is that all the accused conspired together and induced the de-facto complainant to start a College and made him part with money, which were alleged to be diverted for the personal use of the accused. Even as per the allegations, only the trust was started within the local jurisdiction of Tambaram, but the alleged parting with money and the alleged misappropriation or diversion of funds took place at Palayankottai, Tirunelveli District. The 1st respondent had investigated the matter and filed a final report before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tambaram in C.C.No.108 of 2008. Thereafter, the petitioner and others have filed an application in Crl.O.P.No.10146 of 2008 before this Court for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.108 of 2008, but the same was dismissed on 09.07.2012 giving liberty to work out their remedy for getting the case transferred, if they can establish that the Court at Tambaram has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition to withdraw the case in C.C.No.108 of 2008 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Tambaram and transfer the same to the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, No.II, Tirunelveli. 4. Second respondent / de-facto complainant filed a counter stating that petitioner/A1, who was employed as the Principal of Margoschis College, Nazareth, approached him and stated that he was willing to make arrangements for starting a Science and Arts College in Tirunelveli District and requested the de-facto complainant to send a sum of Rs.5 lakhs in the name of his mother Jayamony/A3 and accordingly, he sent a chqeue for Rs.5 lakhs on 15.09.2006. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant arranged Rs.45 lakhs, after selling his immovable property and sent the same through his brother's son and others on 05.10.2006 to A1. The de-facto complainant also received a cheque book in Account No.301930 in the name of the Trust on 05.10.2006 itself and the money was entrusted for the purpose of depositing the same in the Trust account. Later on, he came to know that the amount was not deposited in the trust account and on the other hand, the petitioner with the help of A2, deposited the same in the bank account of himself and A3 and later withdrew the amount and misappropriated the same. Thereafter, A1 to A3 joined together and misappropriated the amount sent by the de-facto complainant for purchase of lands with the common intention to misappropriate the same and committed breach of trust to the tune of Rs.44.74 lakhs. Immediately, the de-facto complainant preferred a complaint before the Crime Branch, Egmore, which was registered on 14.03.2007 and A1 was arrested and was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, who remanded him till 03.04.2007. Charge sheet has been laid for criminal breach of trust punishable under sections 406 and 420 IPC read with section 34 and 109 IPC. The amount misappropriated by A1 in respect of which the criminal breach of trust is committed is liable to be returned or accounted for at the registered office of the Trust at No.4/2, Vengambakkam Road, Vengambakkam, Chennai-48 situated within the limits of Peerkkankaranai Police Station. The Court having the territorial jurisdiction is the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram. Therefore, the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tambaram, is competent to conduct the trial of the case. Hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is the specific allegation of the de-facto complainant that only on the representation made by A1 to start a College, all the amounts were withdrawn by the de-facto complainant from his bank account at Punjab National Bank, Selaiyur, Tambaram and the same were deposited in the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Palayamkottai and thereafter, the accused persons withdrew and misappropriated the same. Even as per the allegations, the entire transaction took place at Palayankottai and the amounts said to have been withdrawn and misappropriated were also at Palayankottai. The trust was started only on 29.09.2006, which was very much after handing over of money. Even as per the allegations, the entire transaction took place at Palayankottai and the amounts said to have been withdrawn and misappropriated were also at Palayankottai. The trust was started only on 29.09.2006, which was very much after handing over of money. Therefore, there is no question of handing over the amounts to the account of the trust, which were allegedly paid before the incorporation of trust. Therefore, the Court at Tambaram is not having jurisdiction. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied on the decision in the case of S. Sukmini Achi and others .vs. Bankimchandra K. Lodaya and another ((1979( 0 Bom CR 581). 6. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/de-facto complainant submitted that the entire amount was withdrawn by the de-facto complainant from Punjab National Bank, Selaiyur, Tambaram and sent to the account of A1 at Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Palayankottai with an instruction to deposit the same in the trust office at Vengambakkam. But the amount was not deposited at the trust account. Thus, the accused persons misappropriated the same. Though the money was entrusted at different places and there was a misappropriation, the amounts misappropriated by the accused are liable to be returned or accouanted for at the registered office of the Trust at Vengambakkam, Chennai, where the accounting has to be done. Therefore, the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tambaram has got jurisdiction to try the matter under section 181(4) Cr.P.C. In supprot of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied on the decisions reported in 1976 MLJ (Crl.) 165 (Public Prosecutor vs.. D.Venkatranga Reddy) and (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 359 (Rajesh Talwar .vs. CBI). 7. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also and perused the materials available on record. 8. According to the petitioner, since it is the allegation of the de-facto complainant that the amounts were withdrawn from the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Tirunelveli and the alleged misappropriation or diversion of funds took place at Palayankottai, the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirunelveli alone has got jurisdiction, whereas, according to the 2nd respondent, under section 181(4) of Cr.P.C., though the money was entrusted at different places and misappropriation of the same occurred, the accused are required to submit account at the registered office of the trust, where the accounting has to be done. Hence, the criminal court at Tambaram alone has got jurisdiction. 9. Hence, the criminal court at Tambaram alone has got jurisdiction. 9. For understanding, section 181(4) is extracted hereunder: "S.181. Place of trial in case of certain offences: (4) Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within 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 person." A reading of the said provision would show that any offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust may be tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction, the petitioner/accused has to account for the money misappropriated. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the Judicial Magistrate Court at Tambaram is the competent court to try the offence since the petitioner/accused has to account for the money misappropriated at the trust office situated at Vengambakkam, Chennai. 10. It is yet another submission of the petitioner that the accused persons are residing at Tirunelveli and A3 is aged about 92 and she is bed-ridden and hence, the balance of convenience of the parties has to be taken into consideration. But, in my view, the said submission cannot be appreciated. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent reported in (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 359 (Rajesh Talwar .vs. CBI) and the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder: "46. Jurisdiction of a court to conduct criminal prosecution is based on the provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure. Often either the complainant or the accused have to travel across an entire State to attend to criminal proceedings before a jurisdictional court. In some cases to reach the venue of the trial court, a complainant or an accused may have to travel across several States. Likewise, witnesses too may also have to travel long distances, in order to depose before the jurisdictional court. If the plea of inconvenience for transferring the cases from one court to another, on the basis of time taken to travel to the court conducting the criminal trial is accepted, the provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code earmarking the courts having jurisdiction to try cases would be rendered meaningless. If the plea of inconvenience for transferring the cases from one court to another, on the basis of time taken to travel to the court conducting the criminal trial is accepted, the provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code earmarking the courts having jurisdiction to try cases would be rendered meaningless. Convenience or inconvenience are inconsequential so far as the mandate of law is concerned. The instant plea, therefore, deserves outright rejection". The principles enunciated in the said decision are squarely applicable to the case on hand. It is clear that convenience or inconvenience is inconsequential so far as the mandate of law is concerned. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as such, the petition is liale to be dismissed. Accordingly, the criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. Since A-3, the mother of A-1 is aged about 92 years, she is at liberty to file an application before the trial court to dispense with her personal appearance and on such application, the learned Magistrate may consider the same positively.