The criminal misappropriation under section 403 IPC and Criminal Breach of Trust under section 406 IPC, it not essential that at the time the property is said to have been received or retained by the accused person he must have a dishonest intention to misappropriate it or to commit criminal breach of trust with reference to it. It is enough if the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained by the accused at a particular place to give jurisdiction to the magistrate of that place to try the case. Even the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the place where the property was to be returned or accounted for can try the offence. therefore, even supposing falsification of account has taken place outside jurisdiction, but if the accountability is within jurisdiction, the court can try the case. Where the accused, a former employee of a company having its Head Office at Calcutta, collected money for the company at Bombay Branch Office of the company, it was held that the Bombay Court had jurisdiction to try the case of criminal breach of trust under section 408 of IPC and not the Calcutta Court, and the case was transmitted to the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay for trial. The Orissa High Court held that an offence of Criminal Breach of Trust can be tried by any one of the following Court:-
- Within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed;
- Where any part of the property, which was the subject-matter of the offence, was received or retained; and
- At the place where property was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused.
 Laxman, (1926) 51 Bom 101: 28 Bom LR 1292
 S.R. Sharma v. State of West Bengal, 1993 Cr Lj 831 (Cal)
 Jijo v.State, 2003 CrLJ 256 (Kant)
 Raja Ram Patnaik v. Indian Metal & Ferro – Alloys Limited, 1996 CrLJ 732 (Ori)