- (1.) J. C. Gupta, J. 1. Heard applicants' counsel.
(2.) BY means of this revision the ap plicant has sought that the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge in revision preferred by respondent No. 3 be quashed. It appears that a criminal com plaint has been filed by opposite party No. 3 against the present applicants and by the order dated 2-8-97 the applicants were summoned as accused. The applicants moved an application before the Magistrate concerned, with the prayer to rescind the summoning order on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint did not confer any jurisdiction on the Court at Aligarh. The learned Magistrate by order dated 28-3-98 recalled the order dated 2-8-97. The complainant then preferred revision before the Ses sions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge set aside the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate and directed the ap plicants to appear before the Magistrate concerned for further proceedings. It would appear from the perusal of the im pugned order that the learned Sessions Judge has taken the view that the evidence on record did not oust the jurisdiction of Aligarh Court inasmuch as the dowry was demanded at Aligarh at the time of mar riage which undisputedly was solemnised at Aligarh and the articles in respect of which misappropriation is alleged was entrusted to the applicants in revision at Aligarh. A bare perusal of sub-section (4) of the Section 181, Cr. P. C. would show that any offence of criminal misappropriation can be enquired or tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is subject to the offence was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person. It is thus clear that a Court within whose local jurisdiction if any part of the property which is alleged to have been misap propriated is received, the said Court will have the jurisdiction to try the case. In the present case, as has been pointed out by the lower revisional Court, the property which is alleged to have been misap propriated was entrusted to the applicant at the time of marriage at Aligarh and thus part of cause of action having been arisen within the local jurisdiction of Aligarh Courts. The complaint was fully com petent and the Magistrate concerned had the jurisdiction to entertain the same and pass the summoning order. The view taken by the lower revisional Court thus requires no interference. The revision is dismissed summarily. Revision dismissed. .;