Abdur Rahim, J.
1. What happened in this case was that a dacoity was committed in British territory and the accused, a Native Indian Subject of His Majesty, was found in possession of property alleged to have been stolen at that dacoity, in the Pudukottah State. He is charged with an offence under Section 412, Indian Penal Code, and not Section 395, Indian Penal Code. Section 180 Criminal Procedure Code, no doubt, makes an offence such as that tinder Section 412, Indian Penal Code, triable at the place where the property is retained or where the theft or dacoity took place.
2. But then Section 188, Criminal Procedure Code, enacts that if an offence is committed by a Native Indian Subject of His Majesty in the territory of a Native State and that is the case here–he can be tried for such offence in a Court in British India only if the Political Agent of the State certifies that the charge ought to be tried in British India. There can be no doubt that the general provisions” of Section 180, Criminal Procedure Code, are governed by Section 188, Criminal Procedure Code. No such certificate has been obtained in this case. I, therefore, quash the commitment as recommended by the Sessions Judge.