JUDGMENT MADHAV J.JAMDAR,J. - The Applicant, who is the original accused in various criminal cases pending in various Courts, namely, Mumbai, Wardha, Nagpur, Pune and Osmanabad has filed above referred nine Criminal Applications under sections 482 and 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C., 1973") inter alia seeking transfer of these cases to the Competent Court in Mumbai for its trial in accordance with law. The details of all these cases are as under : Criminal Application No. CR.No. Police Station Case No. and Court Offence punishable under sections Status of Applicant 624/2014 83/2005 and 13/2005 Santacruz police station CC.No.412/PW/2007 Add. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. 409, 420, 34 IPC Accused No.2 625/2014 CR.No.8172 002 L.T.Marg police station. Mumbai CCNo.324/P/2GQ2 Add.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47 th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. 409, 420, r/w.. 120(B) of IPC Accused No.3 626/2014 C.R.No.50/2 004 E.O.W. Mumbai CR.No.298/ 2004 Santacruz police station CC.No.197/PW/2007 Add.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. 409, 465, 120(B) of IPC Accused No.l 627/2014 C.R.110 of 2002 and No. 124/2002, Wardha Police Station CCNo.573/2002 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha 406, 409, 420 r/ w. 34 IPC Accused No.l 628/2014 C.R. No. 101/2002 (Original C.R. No. 97/2002 of Ganeshpeth Police Station, Nagpur. C.C.No. 147/2002 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur 406, 409, 468, 471 r/w. 120-B r/w. Section 34 of IPC Accused No.3 629/2014 C.R. No. 65 of 2002 Vishrambag Police Station, Pune C.C.No.357/2002 J. M. F.C., Shivaji Nagar, Pune 406, 409, 420, r/w 34 of IPC Accused No.l 630/2014 C.R. No. 75 of 2002 City Kotwali Police Station, Amravati C.C.No.847/2003 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati 406, 409, 420, 468, 34, 120B of IPC Accused No.21 631/2014 C.R.No. 102/2002 Pimpri Police Station, Pune C.C.No.498/2002 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pimpri, Pune 465, 467, 468, 471, 406, 408, 420, 34 of IPC Accused No. 20 1022/2014 C.R.No.45/2 002 of EOW (Original C.R. No. 158/2002. C.C.No.398/2002 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad 406, 409, 420, 468, 471 r/w. Section 34 IPC Accused No.7 2. We have heard Mr.Niteen Pradhan, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, Mr.AA.Kumbhakoni, learned Advocate General for the Respondent - State of Maharashtra, Mr. B.B.Tiwari, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.4 in Criminal Application No.624 of 2014 and Mr.D.H.Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.4 to 7, 9, 11 to 13 in Criminal Application No.627 of 2014. 3. At the outset we note that both Mr. B.B.Tiwari, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.4 in Criminal Application No.624 of 2014 and Mr.D.H.Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.4 to 7, 9, 11 to 13 in Criminal Application No.627 of 2014. 3. At the outset we note that both Mr. Niteen Pradhan, learned Counsel and Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni, the learned Advocate General advanced submissions by referring to the facts of the Criminal Application No. 628 of 2014. 4. Mr.Niteen Pradhan, learned Counsel contended that transactions which are the subject matter of all these Criminal cases had taken place at Mumbai and, therefore, the Courts at Nagpur, Wardha, Pune, Amravati and Osmanabad have no jurisdiction to conduct the trial of these cases. He mainly relied on section 181(4) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. He relied on several judgments of this Court as well as of Hon'ble Supreme Court. He submitted that alleged offence is of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust and entire transaction had taken place in Mumbai and, therefore, as per section 181(4) of Cr.P.C., 1973 the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed has jurisdiction to conduct trial and, therefore, Court at Mumbai exclusively has got jurisdiction to deal with these cases. He has very heavily relied on the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1930 Bom 490 = 32 BLR 1195 in re Jivandas Savchand. 5. Mr.Niteen Pradhan, learned Counsel submitted that the Applicant was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of M/s.Home Trade Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "said company"). The said company was engaged in business of Stock and Securities, Brokering and Trading. The said company was member of National Stock Exchange of India (hereinafter referred to as "NSE") and of Bombay Stock Exchange of India (hereinafter referred to as "BSE") and also of Pune Stock Exchange (hereinafter referred to as "PSE"). He submitted that the transactions which are subject matters of the above nine criminal cases have taken place in city of Mumbai wherein the Government of India Securities were offered, sold and purchased. The contract notes were executed and issued by the said company as a member of NSE in city of Mumbai. The money transactions have also taken place in Mumbai. The contract notes were executed and issued by the said company as a member of NSE in city of Mumbai. The money transactions have also taken place in Mumbai. He submitted that the respective charge-sheets in said nine cases were filed with respect to offences under sections 406, 409, 468, 471, 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). 6. Mr.Niteen Pradhan, the learned Counsel submitted that the said company had entered into few transactions relating to Government of India Securities with Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "NDCCB"). He submitted that there was delayed delivery of Rs.125.60 crores to NDCCB and, therefore, the FIR was lodged. He submitted that the then Chairman of NDCCB - Sunil Babashed Kedar lodged FIR bearing C.R.No.97 of 2002 at Ganeshpeth police station, Nagpur for the offence punishable under section 406, 420 read with 34 of IPC against five companies including said company on 25/04/2002. He submitted that in the meanwhile the Special Auditor was appointed to investigate the affairs of NDCCB and Special Auditor concluded that the management of NDCCB was also responsible and lodged FIR on 29/04/2002 bearing C.R.No.101/2002 at Ganesh Peth police station, Nagpur against the then Chairman - Sunil Kedar and the then General Manager - Ashok Nange and others. He submitted that investigation in both crimes i.e. C.R.No.97/2002 and C.R.No.101 of 2002 was conducted by CID, Nagpur Unit and thereafter charge-sheet was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class No.I, Nagpur clubbing both FIRs and the Applicant was arrayed as Accused No.3. The said case is numbered as C.C.No.147 of 2002 for the offences under sections 406, 409, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of IPC. He submitted that initially case relating to Nagpur District Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Osmanabad District Central Co- operative Bank Ltd. were investigated by EOW, Mumbai and after almost entire investigation was completed, the investigation was transferred to Nagpur police and Osmanabad police respectively and thereafter charge- sheets were filed in respective courts. He also pointed out factual position regarding above remaining eight cases. He submitted that all those cases are pertaining to delayed delivery of Government of India Securities. He submitted that all transactions were entered into at Mumbai. The contract notes pertaining to transactions were executed at Mumbai. He also pointed out factual position regarding above remaining eight cases. He submitted that all those cases are pertaining to delayed delivery of Government of India Securities. He submitted that all transactions were entered into at Mumbai. The contract notes pertaining to transactions were executed at Mumbai. The consideration amount of District Co-operative Banks from Wardha, Nagpur, Amravait, Osmanabad, Mumbai and Pune were paid and received in Mumbai. He submitted that all securities transactions were routed through existing bank accounts of these District Co-operative Banks at Maharashtra State Central Co-operative Bank, Fort Branch at Mumbai. 7. Mr.Niteen Pradhan, the learned Counsel further submitted that the financial transactions have taken place from the bank accounts held by the Complainant and the Accused which are in Mumbai and many witnesses are common in all cases and are from Mumbai and, therefore, he prayed that all the cases be transferred to the Competent Court in Mumbai and be tried in accordance with law. He submitted that monies were transferred from the said Mumbai accounts and securities were also transferred by the Applicant through his brokering companies/entities in Mumbai. He submitted that the said transactions are covered by the Regulations framed by the NSE, Mumbai. He submitted that in view of provisions of section 181(4) of Cr.P.C. the jurisdiction for registration of offence, investigation and consequent trial is in Mumbai. He pointed out several orders passed by this Court in above Criminal Applications. He pointed out several orders passed in PIL No.25/2014 which was filed before Nagpur Bench of this Court. 8. Mr.Niteen Pradhan, the learned Counsel relied on the judgment reported in (1988) 2 SCC 602 in A.R.Antulay vs. R.S.Nayak and Anr. He submitted that the said judgment deals with effect of trial held without jurisdiction. He submitted that the trial conducted by various Courts outside Mumbai are being conducted illegally and without jurisdiction. He relied on the judgment reported in (1992) 1 SCC 534 in case of Smt. Shrisht Dhawan vs. M/s.Shaw Brothers and more particularly on paragraphs 19 of the said judgment wherein it has been held that mistake of fact in relation to jurisdiction is an error of jurisdictional fact. He relied on the judgment reported in (1992) 1 SCC 534 in case of Smt. Shrisht Dhawan vs. M/s.Shaw Brothers and more particularly on paragraphs 19 of the said judgment wherein it has been held that mistake of fact in relation to jurisdiction is an error of jurisdictional fact. No statutory authority or Tribunal can assume jurisdiction in respect of subject matter which the statute does not confer on it and if by deciding erroneously the fact on which jurisdiction depends the Court or tribunal exercises the jurisdiction then the order is vitiated. Error of jurisdictional fact renders the order ultra vires and bad. He relied on several other judgments, the reference to relevant judgments will be made as and when necessary. 9. Mr.Kumbhakoni, learned Advocate General, on the other hand submitted that real issue involved in the present matter is not whether Criminal Courts situate at Mumbai has jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide all above referred criminal cases but real issue is whether respective Criminal Courts where the trials are presently being conducted have jurisdiction to continue with those trials. The learned Advocate General submitted that all these cases are dealing with District Central Co-operative Banks and such banks have limited jurisdiction only to extent of said District. Such banks cannot give loan to persons outside the District. He submitted that Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. cannot give loan to person who is residing outside area of operation of said bank. He submitted that every District Central Co-operative Bank has account in Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank at Mumbai and, therefore, it cannot be termed that entire transaction had taken place in Mumbai. He submitted that money paid to the Applicant through Bank which is in Mumbai has no relevance as the money has come from Nagpur and therefore, the contention that the Court in Mumbai has exclusive jurisdiction is without any basis. He submitted that accused delivered certain documents terming them as securities at Nagpur and the said securities were found to be forged and merely photocopies of said securities were submitted with the NDCCB. He submitted that original securities were never delivered. He submitted that the Chairman of NDCCB is main accused and he committed offence at Nagpur. He submitted that said Chairman in collusion with other accused committed the said offence. 10. He submitted that original securities were never delivered. He submitted that the Chairman of NDCCB is main accused and he committed offence at Nagpur. He submitted that said Chairman in collusion with other accused committed the said offence. 10. The learned Advocate General submitted that most of these criminal cases are nearing completion. He submitted that section 181(4) of Cr.P.C., 1973 applies to all these cases. He submitted that Full Bench judgment of this Court in re Jivandas Savchand (supra) has no application since it was delivered when section 181(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1878 (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P.C., 1878), was in operation and the said section and Section 181(4) of Cr.P.C., 1973 are not pari materia and there are material changes in both the provisions. He relied on the judgment reported in (2001) 1 Mh.L.J. 407 in Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh, Jalgaon vs. State of Maharashtra and Others more particularly on paragraphs 9 and 17 of the said judgment to contend that Full Bench judgment in the matter between re Jivandas Savchand (supra) is no more good law as substratum i.e. very basis of said judgment does not exists. Relying on the said judgment, he submitted that provisions of statute after its amendment are to be read and construed with reference to new provisions and not with reference to the provisions which originally existed. 11. Mr.Kumbhakoni, learned Advocate General has relied on the relevant portion of Forty-First Report of Law Commission of India by which amendment to section 181(2) of Cr.P.C. 1878 was proposed. The Forty-First Report was published in September 1969. He also relied on judgment reported in (2007) 5 SCC 786 in case of Asit Bhattacharjee vs. Hanuman Prasad Ojha and Others. He submitted that section 178 Cr.P.C., 1973 clearly provides that even if a part of cause of action arises within jurisdiction of the police station concerned situate within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance under section 190 (1) Cr.P.C.,1973 then such Court will have jurisdiction to make investigation. He relied on the judgment reported in (2001) 9 SCC 432 in the matter between CBI vs. Braj Bhushan Prasad and Others and particularly on paragraphs 38 and 39 of the said judgment. He relied on the judgment reported in (2001) 9 SCC 432 in the matter between CBI vs. Braj Bhushan Prasad and Others and particularly on paragraphs 38 and 39 of the said judgment. He submitted that as per section 181(4) inter alia the Court within whose local jurisdiction any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused will have jurisdiction and, therefore, submitted that respective Courts dealing with these criminal cases will have jurisdiction. He further relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012 (3) SCC 132 in Lee Kun Hww, President, Samsung Corporation, South Korea and Others. He submitted that with respect to offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust inter alia the Court within whose local jurisdiction, the whole or a part of the consideration were required to be returned or accounted for would have jurisdiction in the matter and, therefore, he submitted that respective Courts have jurisdiction to deal with the respective cases. He relied on the judgment of this Court reported in 2016 SCC Bom online 1574 in the matter between Evangelical Alliance Ministries Trust and Others vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. wherein the Full Bench judgment in re Jivandas Savchand dated 18th July, 1930 was considered and it is specifically observed that the said Full Bench judgment was on the basis of the then applicable provision and the provision of law has been amended. He, then, submitted that the respective Courts dealing with all the aforesaid nine criminal cases are having jurisdiction. He further submitted that some of these criminal cases are nearing completion and, therefore, at this stage the transfer of cases as sought by the Applicant be not granted. 12. Shri B B Tiwari, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.4 in Application No.624 of 2014 relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 92 in the matter between Kaushik Chatterjee vs. State of Haryana and Others more particularly on paragraphs 38 and 40. He submitted that territorial jurisdiction can depend on facts established through evidence. Relying on the said judgment, he submitted that all these questions are required to be raised before the Court trying the offence and such Court is bound to consider the same. He submitted that territorial jurisdiction can depend on facts established through evidence. Relying on the said judgment, he submitted that all these questions are required to be raised before the Court trying the offence and such Court is bound to consider the same. He relied on the depositions recorded in Regular Criminal Case No.147 of 2002 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur and submitted that as per the said oral evidence it is very clear that the transaction has taken place in Mumbai and, therefore, it is necessary to transfer the trial of the said cases to the city of Mumbai. 13. Mr.D.H.Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.5 to 7, 9, 11 to 13 in Criminal Application No.627 of 2014 submitted that the said Criminal Application is concerning transfer of Regular Criminal Case No.573 of 2002 from the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha to the Competent Court at Mumbai. He submitted that he is opposing the prayer for transfer of the case. He submitted that the trial of the said Regular Criminal Case No.573 of 2002 has progressed substantially and, therefore, the trial be not transferred. He further submitted that the Directors of said bank, namely Accused No.2 and Accused No.4 i.e. present Respondent Nos.2 and 4 had moved similar Application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha to transfer the case and said Application was rejected on 9th January, 2013 and Criminal Application No.2 of 2013 moved before the Nagpur Bench of this Court challenging said order was withdrawn by them on 1st February, 2013 without seeking liberty to file any fresh Application and thereafter present Application is filed by another Director of said Bank i.e. present Applicant on the same grounds. He, therefore, opposed the prayer of the Applicant. 14. Before considering the legal submissions concerning relief regarding transfer of above referred criminal cases pending in respective Courts to a Competent Court in Mumbai, we deem it appropriate to set out factual position involved in Criminal Application No.628 of 2014. The prayer in said application is to transfer C.C. No. 147 of 2002 pending on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Nagpur arising out of C.R. No.101 of 2002 and C.R. No.97 of 2002 registered at Ganeshpeth Police Station, Nagpur to a Competent Court in Mumbai for its trial in accordance with law. 15. The prayer in said application is to transfer C.C. No. 147 of 2002 pending on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Nagpur arising out of C.R. No.101 of 2002 and C.R. No.97 of 2002 registered at Ganeshpeth Police Station, Nagpur to a Competent Court in Mumbai for its trial in accordance with law. 15. The Respondent No.2-Sunil Kedar lodged FIR No. 97 of 2002 on 25 th April, 2002 at Ganeshpeth Police Station, Nagpur. The relevant portion of said FIR is as follows:- "I am a Chairman of the Nagpur District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Nagpur since 1993 to March, 1995 and now again from the date 19.01.1999. The working capital of our bank in Rs.827 crores and demand and time liability is Rs.630 crores approximately. In February, 2001, our bank had entered into an agreement with M/s. Home Trade Ltd. Tower 4, Vashi Railway Station Complex, New Mumbai's Executive Director Shri Trivedi for making assignment in the Govt. Securities and Investments. Since that date, we were transacting about purchase and sale of approved Govt. Securities. M/s. Home Trade Ltd. is a firm registered with the Reserve Bank of India and it is recorgnized by SEBI. All the certificates of our financial transactions done with this firm so far were given to us. But, since last three months, we did not get the Investment certificates of our investments. During this period, NABARD had carried out the inspection of our bank in the year 2002 and at that time it had demanded the original investment certificates and not the Xerox copies. This broker was sending the Xerox copies of the certificates and after the completion of the transaction, he was sending the amount of difference. But, as per the directions of the NABARD and demanding the original certificate of Investment, they have communicated that it has been sent to you regularly. But, in fact, on the lines of M/s. Home Trade Ltd. We made correspondence with the following companies: (1) M/s.Home Trade Ltd. Tower Four, Vashi Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai's executive Director Shri Trivedi; (2) M/s. Indramani Mercants Pvt. Ltd. Raj Kuti, 2-B, Pretoria Street, Calcutta, (3) M/s. Sendru dealers Pvt. Ltd. 11, Babu Road, Calcutta, (4) M/s. Syndicate Management services Pvt. Ltd. 405, Aalish Annexe, Gulibar Tekdi, Ahemadabad (Gujrat), (5) M/s. Gilrage Management services ltd. 108, Liberty Apartment, 80-A, Ragni Road, Vile Parle (West) Mumbai- 50 (M.S.) (Approved Govt. Securities) had made the purchase sale transactions of the Govt. Bonds (1) to (5) above. We did not receive any certificates of the financial transactions since 25.01.2002 from all the Brokers. In this way, the amount of Rs.125.60 crores paid by us for investment in the Govt. Bonds, but we were not given the actual certificates and thereby cheated us. The above said amount of Rs.125.60 crores vide cheques drawn on the Nagpur District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., near Shukrawari Talao, Head office, as per the other transactions, was deposited in our account in the Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank, Mumbai Branch. The above said transactions were done through the cheques/transfer mode. All the relevant documents are available in the bank records and we can submit the same to the investigating officer as and when asked to do so." (Emphasis Supplied) Thus, the contents of said FIR clearly show that inter alia huge amounts were sent by Nagpur District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Nagpur to its account in Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank, Fort Branch, Mumbai Branch and the same were inter alia paid to the said company for purchasing Government of India securities. It is specifically mentioned that original investment certificates were not provided to the Nagpur District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Nagpur but photo copies were provided. 16. It appears that five days before the Respondent No.2 -Sunil Kedar lodged FIR No. 97 of 2002, the Commissioner and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune by letter dated 20 th April, 2002 informed the Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nagpur about the financial irregularities and scam in the Nagpur District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Nagpur and it was directed to conduct proper inquiry and to take police action, if necessary. Thereafter, the Divisional Joint Registrar Co- operative Societies, Nagpur issued order dated 24th April, 2002 directing the Special Registrar, Class I (Bank), Co-operative Societies, Nagpur to conduct the audit of the bank transactions and send the report thereof. Thereafter, Bhaurao Vishwanath Aswar, Special Auditor Class-I (Bank) Cooperative Department, Nagpur conducted inquiry regarding financial irregularities and scam of Nagpur District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Nagpur. The following persons were non-applicants in the said inquiry. (i) Sunil Chhatrapal Kedar, Chairman/President, Nagpur District Central Sahakari Bank Ltd. Nagpur. Thereafter, Bhaurao Vishwanath Aswar, Special Auditor Class-I (Bank) Cooperative Department, Nagpur conducted inquiry regarding financial irregularities and scam of Nagpur District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Nagpur. The following persons were non-applicants in the said inquiry. (i) Sunil Chhatrapal Kedar, Chairman/President, Nagpur District Central Sahakari Bank Ltd. Nagpur. (ii) Shri A. C. Choudhary, General Manager, Nagpur District Central Sahakari Bank Ltd. Nagpur. (iii) M/s. Home Trade Ltd. Tower Four, Vashi Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai's executive Director Shri Trivedi. (iv) M/s. Indramani Mercants Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai. (v) M/s. Syndicate Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Ahemadabad (vi) Century Delers Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata (vii) M/s. Giltage Management Services Ltd. and Ors. 17. In the said inquiry it was found that the said transaction was to the tune of Rs. 124,05,75000/- upto March-2001. The original documents of said transaction such as original securities, bonds, investment certificate, money receipt etc. were not found available in the bank and all these transactions were found to have been done through brokers/agents. The Board of Directors also made aware of these transaction in its meeting held on 25 th August, 2001. In the said Inquiry Report it is specifically observed that it is doubtful whether the actual transactions were done or not by the non- applicant Nos.3 to 7. It was also found that bank has got only photo copies of the contract note in respect of non-applicant No.3. But the contract notes in respect of their agents/non-applicant Nos. 4 to 7 were not available in the bank. Non-applicant Nos. 4 to 7 have only given details of securities but none of the documents of securities are available with the bank. It is specifically mentioned in the said inquiry report that entire transaction made by the Nagpur District Central Co-Operative Bank is doubtful, illegal and against the trust of the shareholders and the depositors. In the said inquiry report following conclusion is recorded:- "It has been concluded by the applicant in his inspection that the above bank is a Trustee of the Depositors and share holders and it has done the investment of the Public Money unauthorisedly and illegally through the unauthorized brokers/agents. Their this Act is a criminal breach of Trust of the interest of the Depositors and share holders. The Chairman of the bank i.e. the non-applicant no. 1 and the non-applicant no. Their this Act is a criminal breach of Trust of the interest of the Depositors and share holders. The Chairman of the bank i.e. the non-applicant no. 1 and the non-applicant no. 2 is a general manager are the public servants and the share holders and depositors have deposited their hard earned money with the bank with the great trust and belief." (Emphasis Supplied) 18. In view of the said inquiry report, Mr. Bhaurao Vishwanath Aswar, Special Auditor Class-I (Bank) Cooperative Department, Nagpur lodged FIR No. 101 of 2002 on 29th April, 2002 with Ganeshpeth Police Station Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 468, 409 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Thereafter investigation in both the aforesaid crimes i.e. C.R. No. 97 of 2002 and 101 of 2002 was conducted by State CID, Nagpur Unit. The Deputy Superintendence of Police, CID, Maharashtra State Nagpur filed chargesheet and said case was numbered as C.C. No. 147 of 2002 for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of Indian Penal Code. Some of the relevant aspects as set out in the summary of investigation in final report submitted under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure are as follows:- "1. The Chairman Sunil Kedar, Vice Chairman Smt. Asha Mahajan, Joint manager Shri A. L. Chaudhari, Chief Accountant Shri A. G. Gokhale and Chief Administrative Officer Shri S. S. Gode were authorised to deal with the transactions regarding sale and purchase of Government Securities by the resolution no 8 in the meeting of the board of directors of the Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank dated 19.1.99. 2. In the meeting of the board of directors of the Nagpur district Central Cooperative Bank held on 16.5.99, a resolution No. 14.6 came to be passed that the transaction of the Government Securities from Reserve Bank of India would be by S. G. L. mode and through the account of Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank. 3. On 14.9.2000, Chairman Sunil Kedar took the signatures of the other 6 directors by passing circulating Resolution. As per the said resolution, a decision was taken to sanction the loan of 40 crores by the NDCC bank to the Euro Discover India Limited on 20% interest. Accordingly, the Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank sanctioned the loan of rupees 40 crores to the directors of Euro Discover India Limited 1. Sanjay Agrawal Mumbai 2. As per the said resolution, a decision was taken to sanction the loan of 40 crores by the NDCC bank to the Euro Discover India Limited on 20% interest. Accordingly, the Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank sanctioned the loan of rupees 40 crores to the directors of Euro Discover India Limited 1. Sanjay Agrawal Mumbai 2. Ketan Kantilal Sheth, Mumbai 3. Nandakishor Shankarlal Trivedi, Mumbai. The Chairman Sunil Kedar himself accepted 4 cheques of 10 crores pertaining to the said loan and gave them to the Director Euro Discover India Limited, Sanjay Agrawal. It was observed that the said loan of 40 crores was given without following the banking Rules. The area of operation of the Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank is limited to the district Nagpur. The directors of Euro Discover India Limited Co. are not the members of the bank and are outside the area of the operation of the bank. The decision regarding the loan of 40 crores was taken by circulating resolution. Though it was the responsibility of the Chairman to place the said circulating resolution before the next meeting of the board of directors. "Rule 24/14 of the Banking Regulation", the said circulating resolution was never placed before the next meeting of the board of directors. The 6 director who signed thereon, gave a statement that many of the directors who signed the circulating resolution are inadequately qualified and have very little knowledge of English. The signatures were obtained and have very little knowledge of English. The signatures were obtained by General Manager Shri Ashok Chaudhari who told them that the said resolution was to be sent to the NABARD and the signatures were necessary. 4. On 2.2.2021, Shri Peshkar, the Chief Accountant Officer prepared an office note to resolve that the Securities were to be purchased in the physical form. Shri A. L. Chaudhari, Chief Manager, proposed the said resolution and the Chairman Shri Sunil Kedar seconded the same. The decision regarding the sale and purchase of the Government Securities in the physical form was taken by the Chairman himself and the same was never placed before the meeting of the board of directors. Similarly, there was no discussion on the said issue ever in the meeting of the board of directors. 5. The decision regarding the sale and purchase of the Government Securities in the physical form was taken by the Chairman himself and the same was never placed before the meeting of the board of directors. Similarly, there was no discussion on the said issue ever in the meeting of the board of directors. 5. From the period 5.2.2001 to 12.6.2001, the amounts 25.80 crores, 26.2 crores, 26.51 crores, 15.14 crores, 40.44 crores, 21.73 crores, 20.02 crores and 10.03 crores, totaling to about 185.70 crores were transferred to the account of Home Trade Limited from the account no. 101/575 of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Mumbai by transfer voucher. It was done after obtaining sanction from the Chief Manager A L Chaudhari and Chairman Sunil Kedar, on the office notes dated 5.2.2002, 7.2.01, 5.3.01, 16.6.01, 20.3.01, 4.6.01, 12.6.01 respectively. During the above period, the original Government Securities were never sent to the bank by the Home Trade Limited Co. It was not revealed that any efforts were made by the Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank to obtain the original Gol Securities. Between the period 21.3 2001 to 31.10. 2001, viz. 21.3 2001,28.3.2001, 11.8.2001, 11.8.2001, 23.8.2001, 24.8.2001, 30.8.2001, 30.8.2001, 31.8.2001 and 8.9.2001 and 31.10.2001, on these dates, amount of 26.47 crores, 4.44 crores, 1.18 crores, 1.37 crores, 78.52 lacs, 17.93 lacs, 2.9 crores, 1.14 crores, 12.37 lacs, 33.19 lacs, 4.9 lacs totaling to about 38.15 crores rupees were returned respectively by the Home Trade Co. Ltd to the Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank. The said amount has been credited to the account of the State Cooperative Bank of the Nagpur District Central Bank account number 101/5751. The balance amount of 147.54 crores remained unpaid by the Home Trade Co. Ltd., to the Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank in the transaction pertaining to the purchase of Government Securities in the year 2001. The Home Trade Company never sent the originals of government securities to the Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank. No efforts were made by the Nagpur District Central Co- operative Bank to obtain the originals of government securities in the year 2001." (Emphasis supplied) 19. The learned Advocate General has relied on certain documents which are part of the charge sheet. The Home Trade Company never sent the originals of government securities to the Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank. No efforts were made by the Nagpur District Central Co- operative Bank to obtain the originals of government securities in the year 2001." (Emphasis supplied) 19. The learned Advocate General has relied on certain documents which are part of the charge sheet. The details of said documents are as follows : (i) The circulating resolution dated 14/09/2020 passed by NDCCB at Nagpur reads as under : "CIRCULATING RESOLUTION, DATED 14.9.2000 M/s.EURO DISCOVER INDIA LTD. International Infotech Parks, Tower 3, 5th Floor, New Mumbai has offered a deal of Rs.40.00 crores for investment in their Securities against the pledge of 5,00,000 Equity Share of Home Trade Limited, equivalent to Rs.40.00 crores as per current market price with collateral security of Rs.40.00 crores of 13,50,000 shares of Ways India Limited. The deal is at a very handsome return of 20% p.a. and is based on buy- back arrangement at Rs.960.00 per share after one year. The investment would be for one year from the date of investment and the interest is payable on half yearly basis. The company has agreed to give post dated cheques of Rs.40.00 crores and two post dated cheque for Rs.4.00 crores each towards repayment of principal and half yearly interest. The investment is guaranteed by 3 Directors M/s.Euro Discover India Ltd., and counter guarantee of 3 Directors in individual capacity is also offered. The Board of The Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Nagpur therefore by this Circulating Resolution dated 14.9.2000 resolves to effect the deal in the interest of the Bank." (Emphasis supplied) The said resolution bears signatures of the accused - Sunil Kedar in his capacity as the Chairman and also of other Directors of NDCCB. (ii) A note dated 14/09/2000 signed by the Chairman of NDCCB was circulated to other Directors of NDCCB while passing said Circulating Resolution dated 14/09/2000. (ii) A note dated 14/09/2000 signed by the Chairman of NDCCB was circulated to other Directors of NDCCB while passing said Circulating Resolution dated 14/09/2000. The said note mentions the details of the proposal for investment of Rs.40 crores received from M/s.Euro Discovery India Ltd. and inter alia records that if the said proposal is approved then the following documents are to be obtained :- 1) Letter of guarantee from Shri Ketan Sheth, Sanjay Agrawal and N.S.Trivedi on stamp paper of Rs.50/- each for Rs.16.00 crores each in the form approved and vetted by Shri P.S.Takre, Chartered Accountant, on the stamps purchased from Nagpur as the city Nagpur would be jurisdiction. 2) Promissory Note duly signed on date. 3) Buy-back agreement on stamp paper of Rs.20/- purchased from Nagpur for Nagpur jurisdiction. (emphasis supplied) (iii) The said note further records the fund position as on 14/09/2020 of the NDCCB. : "Fund Position: As on 14.9.2000, the surplus position of funds is of Rs. 112.00 crores i.e. (A) Call Deposit at Nag pur 19.00 crores (B) Call Deposit at Bombay 39.00 crores (C) Fixed Deposit 54.45 crores (D) Govt. approved securities 90.08 crores (E) Other securities not counted for SLR 15.00 crores 217.53 crores Less 28% Liquidity against TDL of Rs.37,555.80 crores 105.28 crores Surplus 112.25 crores (iv) Accordingly, the Letter of Guarantee was executed on 14/09/2020 inter alia by said Ketan Sheth in favour of the Chairman of NDCCB Ltd., Head Office Ruikar Road, Gandhisagar, Nagpur and the same was executed at Nagpur. (iv) On the proposal for purchase of physical securities of Government of India Securities dated 2nd February, 2001 following remark was found which was approved by the Chairman of the NDCCB: "The proposal for sale of purchase of GOI Securities in physical form can be done through Home Trade Ltd. Home Trade shall operate the transactions of all deals/trades through our current account maintained with M.S.Co-op. Bank Ltd. Mumbai. Put up for approval." (vi) Thereafter sanction from time to time was given for purchase of Government of India Securities and for that purpose huge amounts were paid from the account maintained in the Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank, Fort Branch, Mumbai of NDCCB Ltd., Nagpur. One such sanction dated 03.02.2001 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- ....[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED].... 20. Put up for approval." (vi) Thereafter sanction from time to time was given for purchase of Government of India Securities and for that purpose huge amounts were paid from the account maintained in the Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank, Fort Branch, Mumbai of NDCCB Ltd., Nagpur. One such sanction dated 03.02.2001 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- ....[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED].... 20. Thus, perusal of FIR, the chargesheet and documents which are part of the chargesheet shows that following are the important aspects involved in C.R. No. 101/2002 which is subject matter of Criminal Application No. 628 of 2014 : (i) The area of operation of the Nagpur District Central Co-op Bank Ltd. is limited to the district of Nagpur. Head office of NDCCB Ltd. is at Ruikar Road, Gandhinagar, Nagpur. (ii) The monies of NDCCB are public monies and they are the monies of its share holders and the depositiors. (iii) The NDCCB Ltd. has current account in Maharashtra State Co-op Bank. Fort, Mumbai. (iv) Huge amounts were transferred by Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nagpur from Nagpur to its account in Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank, Fort Branch, Mumbai. (v) The said amounts were inter alia to be utilized for purchase of Government of India securities and for that purpose payment was made to the accused. (vi) The accused failed to provide original Investment Certificates to the 'NDCCB', Nagpur, but provided photo copies and the accused committed criminal misappropriation and/or criminal breach of trust. (vii) The depositors and shareholders of the 'NDCCB', Nagpur who are victims and suffered as their money was unauthorizedly and illegally utilized. (viii) The huge amounts of the depositors/share holders of NDCCB are transferred from Nagpur to the account of NDCCB maintained at Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Mumbai and from that account huge amounts were paid to Home Trade Ltd. or other accused ostensibly for purchase of Government of India Securities. Thus original certificates of said Government of India Securities or the misappropriated monies are required to be returned to or accounted for by the accused persons at NDCCB, Nagpur. 21. In view of above factual position and for appreciating the various submission of the respective Counsel, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of law, both of Cr.P.C., 1878 and Cr.P.C. 1973. (i) The important provisions of Cr. P.C., 1898 are as follows :- Section 177 to 189 of the Cr. 21. In view of above factual position and for appreciating the various submission of the respective Counsel, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of law, both of Cr.P.C., 1878 and Cr.P.C. 1973. (i) The important provisions of Cr. P.C., 1898 are as follows :- Section 177 to 189 of the Cr. P.C., 1898 is regarding place of inquiry for trial. "177. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed." "179. When a person is accused of the commission of any offence by reason of anything which has 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." "181.(2) 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. " (ii) The relevant provisions of Cr.P.C., 1973 are as follows:- (a) "4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws.- (1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained." (b) Sections 177 to 189 of Cr. P.C., 1973 are regarding jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquiries and trials. The important provisions are set out hereinbelow : "177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed." "178. Place of inquiry or trial- (a) when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas." "179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues- When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued." "181(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." 22. Section 181 (2) of Cr. P.C., 1898 and Section 182 (4) of Cr.P.C. 1973 refers to offences of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust. Therefore, Section 403 and Section 405 of IPC are also relevant and therefore relevant portion of the same is set out hereinbelow:- "Sec. 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property. Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Explanation 1.--A dishonest misappropriation for a time only is a misappropriation with the meaning of this section. Explanation 2.--A person who finds property not in the possession of any other person, and takes such property for the purpose of protecting it for, or of restoring it to, the owner, does not take or misappropriate it dishonestly, and is not guilty of an offence; but he is guilty of the offence above defined, if he appropriates it to his own use, when he knows or has the means of discovering the owner, or before he has used reasonable means to discover and give notice to the owner and has kept the property a reasonable time to enable the owner to claim it. What are reasonable means or what is a reasonable time in such a case, is a question of fact. What are reasonable means or what is a reasonable time in such a case, is a question of fact. It is not necessary that the finder should know who is the owner of the property, or that any particular person is the owner of it; it is sufficient if, at the time of appropriating it, he does not believe it to be his own property, or in good faith believe that the real owner cannot be found. Sec. 405. Criminal breach of trust. Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust". 23. A perusal of section 181(2) of Cr.P.C., 1898 shows that following Courts will have jurisdiction to inquire into or try offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of Trust : (i) A Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received by the accused person. (ii) A Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was retained by the accused person. (iii) A Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the offence was committed. 24. If the Section 181(2) of Cr. P.C., 1898 and Section 181(4) of Cr. P.C., 1973, are compared with each other the same clearly shows that there are many changes in both the provisions particularly there are significant additions in section 181(4) of Cr.P.C. 1973. 25. A perusal of section 181 (4) of Cr.P.C., 1973 shows that following Courts will have jurisdiction to inquire into or try offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of Trust : (i) A Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. (ii) A Court within whose local jurisdiction any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received by the accused person. (ii) A Court within whose local jurisdiction any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received by the accused person. (iii) A Court within whose local jurisdiction any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was retained by the accused person. (iv) A Court within whose local jurisdiction any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was required to be returned by the accused person. (v) A Court within whose local jurisdiction any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was required to be accounted for by the accused person. 26. Thus various Courts contemplated under section 181(4) of Cr.P.C. 1973 will have jurisdiction to inquire into or try offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust. Courts within whose local jurisdiction (i) offence was committed or (ii) any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received by the accused or (iii) any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was retained by the accused or (iv) any part of the property which is subject of the offence was required to be returned by the accused or (v) any part of the property which is subject of the offence was required to be accounted for by the accused; all these Courts will have jurisdiction to try said offences. It is very clear that conferring jurisdiction on Court of local jurisdiction where any part of the property which is subject of the offence was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused person as provided in section 181(4) of Cr.P.C., 1973 is not provided in section 181(2) of Cr.P.C., 1898 and the said change is significant addition as far as aspect of jurisdiction is concerned. It is very significant to note that the said change is made from the point of view of victims of the offences. 27. The factual position on record clearly shows that huge amounts which were transferred from 'NDCCB', Nagpur to it's account in the Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Limited, Fort Branch, Mumbai was belonging to the shareholders and depositors of 'NDCCB', Nagpur. The are of operation of NDCCB is only Nagpur District and therefore it is obvious that shareholders and depositors of NDCCB are from Nagpur District. The are of operation of NDCCB is only Nagpur District and therefore it is obvious that shareholders and depositors of NDCCB are from Nagpur District. The said amount was to be utilised for purchasing Government of India Securities. The original certificate of Government of India securities were to be delivered at 'NDCCB', Nagpur. The huge funds from 'NDCCB', Nagpur were transferred from Nagpur to NDCCB's account in Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Limited, Fort at Mumbai and the same were misappropriated or subjected to criminal breach of Trust and therefore, either the original Government of India securities or the said huge funds were required to be returned to NDCCB, Nagpur or accounted to 'NDCCB', Nagpur. Even if NDCCB, Nagpur has got account at Maharashtra State Co- Operative Bank Limited, Fort Branch at Mumbai and even if entire transaction was done through said account at Mumbai and some amounts are returned in said Mumbai account of NDCCB, Nagpur by accused, the fact remains that the said amounts ultimately belong to the shareholders and the depositors of NDCCB, whose area of operation is restricted to Nagpur District and therefore, the said amounts are ultimately required to be returned to or accounted for by the accused person to the shareholders and depositors of NDCCB at Nagpur. Thus, it is clear that Nagpur Court i.e. Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur has also jurisdiction to deal with said case. Thus, the factual aspects as involved in said C.C. No. 147 of 2002 pending on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1, Nagpur, if examined on the basis of relevant provisions namely Section 181 (4) of Cr. P.C., 1973 then it is clear that the said Court at Nagpur has jurisdiction to deal with the said case. 28. Mr. Niteen Pradhan, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner very heavily relied on the judgment in re Jivandas Savchand (supra). In the said case decided by the Full Bench of Bombay High Court, the Court completely dissented from the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in the case reported in AIR 1925 Cal. 613 between Gunananda Dhone vs. Santi Prakash Nandy. In the said case decided by the Full Bench of Bombay High Court, the Court completely dissented from the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in the case reported in AIR 1925 Cal. 613 between Gunananda Dhone vs. Santi Prakash Nandy. The Calcutta High Court took the following view : "If there is a contract that the accused is to render accounts at a particular place and fails to do so as a result of his criminal act in respect of the money, he can, without unduly straining the language of the section, be said to dishonestly use the money at that place as well, in violation of the express contract which he has made touching the discharge of the trust by which he came by the money, and so commits the offence of criminal breach of trust at that place also." The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court recorded it's conclusion as follows : "9. My conclusion therefore is that where the accused is under a liability to render accounts at a particular place and fails to do so by reason of having committed an offence of criminal breach of trust which is alleged against him, the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction that place is situate, may enquire into and try the offence under the provisions of Section 181 Sub-section (2), Criminal Procedure Code." The Hon'ble Chief Justice Beaumont C.J. of the Bombay High Court recorded the dissent of Full Bench to the said view of Calcutta High Court in the following manner :- "With very great respect to the learned Judges who decided that case, I am quite unable to follow the line of reasoning. It seems to me to involve a confusion between the place where the offence was committed and the place where the complainant first acquired evidence that the offence had been committed. It seems to me to involve a confusion between the place where the offence was committed and the place where the complainant first acquired evidence that the offence had been committed. I can see nothing in section 405 of the Indian Penal Code to justify the contention that when a man in Rangoon delivers false accounts in Bombay, he is thereby making a dishonest use in Bombay of money or property which has never left Rangoon." The factual aspects involved in the said judgment of Full Bench in re Jivandas Savchand (supra) as recorded in the said judgment are as follows: "The complaint alleges that the complainant in October 1928 entered into partnership with the accused in the business of merchants and commission agents in rice carried on at Rangoon. Accused No. 1 was to manage and conduct the business at Rangoon according to the instructions that might be issued to him, and was allowed to draw monthly expenses at a certain sum. There were partnership articles between the parties, under which the head office was to be at Bombay, and under Clause (12), accused No. 1 was to send weekly statements on account of the partnership as well as business transacted on behalf of the partnership to the head office in Bombay, and by Clause (16) the accounts of the partnership were to be made up once a year, the profit and loss account to be forwarded by accused No. 1 to the head office in Bombay immediately after the accounts were made up, and the distribution of profits and losses were to be entered up thereafter in accordance with the instructions received from the head office. Now, in short, the charge made against the accused is that they misappropriated the firm's moneys in Rangoon and falsified the accounts in Rangoon, and the question is whether they can be tried for those offences in Bombay". 29. At this stage it is required to be noted that the said Full Bench judgment in re Jivandas Savchand on which Mr.Niteen Pradhan, the learned Counsel has very heavily relied is concerning interpretation of section 181(2) of Cr.P.C, 1898. The equivalent provision of said section of Cr.P.C., 1973 is section 181(4), however, as noticed above there are certain changes particularly very significant additions made in section 181(4) of Cr.P.C., 1973 as compared to section 181(2) of Cr.P.C. 1898. The equivalent provision of said section of Cr.P.C., 1973 is section 181(4), however, as noticed above there are certain changes particularly very significant additions made in section 181(4) of Cr.P.C., 1973 as compared to section 181(2) of Cr.P.C. 1898. We have already highlighted the said changes hereinabove. 30. In this context it is important to note that Forty-First Report of Law Commission of India published in September 1969 elaborately considered the provision of section 181(2) of Cr.P.C., 1898 and observed in paragraph 15.14 to 15.17 as follows : "15.14. Sub-section (2) of section 181 indicates the possible venues for the offences of criminal misappropriation of property and criminal breach of trust. Besides the local area where the offence was committed the venue may be laid in any area within which the property which was the subject of the offence was either received or retained by the accused person. 15.15. As defined in section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, the offence of criminal breach of trust may be one of two types. The first occurs when the trusted person dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use the property in question; and the second, when he dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of :-- (a) any direction of law prescribing the mode of discharge of the trust, or (b) any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of the trust. The place of commission of the offence in the first type is the place where the accused dishonestly misappropriate the property or converted it to his use, and in the second type, it is the place where he dishonestly used or disposed of the property in violation of law or contract. 15.16. Doubt exists in many cases as to the exact manner, point of time and place where the dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal was effected. Since these matters are within the special knowledge of the accused, the complainant is unable to adopt the jurisdiction with which the offence has been committed. Though no such doubts ordinarily arise in regard to the place or places where the property in question was received or retained by the accused, these places are not always suitable for launching the prosecution. 15.17. Though no such doubts ordinarily arise in regard to the place or places where the property in question was received or retained by the accused, these places are not always suitable for launching the prosecution. 15.17. The question has accordingly arisen in a number of reported cases whether these offences can be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose jurisdiction the accused was bound by law or contract, to render accounts or to return the entrusted property but failed to discharge that obligation. The decisions of High Courts on this point are conflicting." (Emphasis Supplied) 31. Thereafter in subsequent paragraphs of the said report of the Law Commission of India, large number of conflicting decisions of various High Courts including the said case decided by Calcutta High Court in the matter of Gunananda Dhone (supra) and aforesaid Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in re Jivandas Savchand (supra) were noted.