ORDER
Ramaswami, J.
1. This criminal revision petition has been filed against an order refusing to entertain a complaint within the limits of Coimbatore district on the ground that it should have been filed within the limits of Travancore-Cochin State.
2. The brief facts are: The complainant and the accused were parties to a civil suit numbered as O. S. NO. 217 of 1950, District Munsiff’s Court, Coimbatore. They entered into a compromise under which the accused was constituted agent for the purpose of making collections for the complainant in regard to the distribution of a picture called “Mangayarkarasi” in the State of Travancore and that the accused was to remit the sums to the complainant in Coimbatore district. There had been default and it is stated that the accused had been swindling moneys and was not accounting for the same. Therefore the complaint was laid in Coimbatore.
3. The learned Sessions Judge citing five decisions held that the complaint ought to be laid in Travancore State and not in Coimbatore and dismissed the revision petition filed by the complainant whose complaint was returned by the First Class
Magistrate, Coimbatore, under Section 201, Criminal P.C. for want of jurisdiction.
4. On going through the decisions I find that out of live lour in fact support the contention 01 Mr. v. Rajagopalachari that the compiant ought to have been laid only in ‘Coimbatore. In ‘Paul De Fiondor v. Emperor’, 59 Cal 92, it has been held that where there is no evidence to show that the alleged misappropriation was committed, other than the fact of non-accounting, the venue may be laid in the place where the accused failed to account which here as per the razinama is Coimbatore.
5. In ‘Prokash Chandra v. “Mohim Chand’, AIR (21) 1934 Cal 392, it was held that where there was no definite allegation of misappropriation having been committed in any particular place in respect of a sum which forms the subject-matter of a case but the allegation is merely of non-accounting as here, in respect of the same, failure to account may itself be taken as evidence of intention to misappropriate and the offence of misappropriation is deemed to have been committed at the place at which the accused ought to have rendered the accounts and which is Coimbatore in this case.
6. In ‘Emperor v. Mohrulal’, 58 All 644, it has been observed that where it is alleged that the accused has failed to account for the property then the second part of Section 405, will apply and Jurisdiction exists at the place where the property should have been delivered by the accused.
7. In ‘Vasanji Khimjee v. Kanji Tokersey, AIR (25) 1938 Rang 94, it was held that the complaint must be laid where the accused had failed to do the thing which he was required to do and which in this case was the accounting to be done at Coimbatore.
8. The only case which is found to be unfavourable to the complainant is that in ‘Daityari Tripetti v. Suboth Chandra’, AIR (29) 1942 Cal 575, where on different set of facts it –held that Section 181 (2) Criminal P. C., does not confer jurisdiction on a Court at a place where the accused has failed to account or dispose of property as per contract. In view of the other four decisions which commend themselves to me, I respectfully disagree with the last mentioned decision and hold that where the charge is of non-accounting and there is no specific allegation of misappropriation in any particular place the venue of the trial will be the place where the accounting has got to be done and has not been done.
9. In these circumstances I hold that the com
plaint can be entertained by the First Class
Magistrate, Coimbatore. The orders of the lower
Court are set aside and the First Class Magis-
trate is directed to entertain the complaint and
proceed to dispose of it in accordance with law.