The Judgment of the Court was as follows:—
In this case the allegations made in the complaint against the accused-Petitioner are that while the accused was in the service of the complainant's firm at Singapore he committed criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 12,379 id goods to the value of Rs. 2,386-13. The complaint was made to the Presidency Magistrate of the Northern Division on the 17th of June and the accused obtained the present rule on the 10th of January 1921. His contention is that on the allegations made by the prosecution the offence complained of, if any, was committed and completed in Singapore and that the Courts in Calcutta have no jurisdiction to try ??? case. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the provisions of sec. 181 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the decision of this Court in Simhachalam v. Emperor .
But here the further case of the prosecution was that for all monies received the accused was to account at Calcutta. Thus the decision directly in point is that in Colville v. Kristo Kishore . Following that decision we must hold that on the allegations made the Courts in Calcutta have jurisdiction.
We therefore discharge this rule.
H.C.S
Rule discharged.