1961 JTR(SC) 192
1961 AIR(SC) 1601 ; 1961 2 AndhWR(SC) 156 ; 1961 CrLJ 736 ; 1961 2 MLJ 156 ; 1961 MLJ(Cri) 670 ; 1961 MWN 540 ; 1961 SCD 781 ; 1961 2 SCJ 600 ; 1962 2 SCR 116 ; 1961 KHC 745
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
19th April, 1961
K. SUBBA RAO AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
L. N. Mukherjee, Appellant
Versus
State of Madras, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
Mr. D. N. Mukherjee, Advocate, for Appellant; M/s. M. S. K. Sastri and T. M. Sen, Advocates, for Respondents.
The court having jurisdiction to try the offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy can also try the offence of conspiracy even if it was committed outside its jurisdiction.
Act Referred :CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.177, S.180, S.239
jurisdiction - criminal conspiracy - The court held that the court having jurisdiction to try the offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy can also try the offence of conspiracy even if it was committed outside its jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal is against the order of the Madras High Court dismissing the application for quashing the commitment of the case against the appellant to the Court of Sessions for trial of offences of criminal conspiracy and cheat under S. 120-B read with S. 420, I.P.C., and for the offence of forgery committed in pursuance of that conspiracy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Court of Session at Madras had jurisdiction to try the offence of conspiracy alleged to have been committed at Calcutta, as the provisions of S. 239, Cr. P. C. are not controlled by the provisions of S. 177, Cr. P. C.
Issues: The sole question for consideration in this appeal is whether the offence of conspiracy alleged to have been committed at Calcutta can be tried by the Court of Session at Madras.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the court having jurisdiction to try the offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy can also try the offence of conspiracy even if it was committed outside its jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The order under appeal was held to be correct, and the appeal was dismissed.
jurisdiction - criminal conspiracy - The court held that the court having jurisdiction to try the offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy can also try the offence of conspiracy even if it was committed outside its jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal is against the order of the Madras High Court dismissing the application for quashing the commitment of the case against the appellant to the Court of Sessions for trial of offences of criminal conspiracy and cheat under S. 120-B read with S. 420, I.P.C., and for the offence of forgery committed in pursuance of that conspiracy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Court of Session at Madras had jurisdiction to try the offence of conspiracy alleged to have been committed at Calcutta, as the provisions of S. 239, Cr. P. C. are not controlled by the provisions of S. 177, Cr. P. C.
Issues: The sole question for consideration in this appeal is whether the offence of conspiracy alleged to have been committed at Calcutta can be tried by the Court of Session at Madras.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the court having jurisdiction to try the offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy can also try the offence of conspiracy even if it was committed outside its jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The order under appeal was held to be correct, and the appeal was dismissed.
D.N.MUKHERJI, M.S.K.Shastri, T.M.SEN
Judgment
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. : This appeal, by special leave, is against the order of the Madras High Court dismissing the application for quashing the commitment of the case against the appellant, to the Court of Sessions, for trial of offences of criminal conspiracy the cheat under S. 120-B read with S. 420, I.P.C., and for the offence of forgery committed in pursuance of that conspiracy. The criminal conspiracy is alleged to have been committed at Calcutta. The other offences in pursuance of the conspiracy are alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the Court of Session at Madras the quashing of the commitment was sought on the ground that the Courts at Madras had no jurisdiction to try the offence of conspiracy. The High Court did not accept the contention and dismissed the application.
2. The sole question for consideration in this appeal is whether the offence of conspiracy alleged to have been committed at Calcutta can be tried by the Court of Session at Madras.
3. We have held this day, in Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1959: (AIR 1961 SC 1589) that the Court having jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy can also try offences committed in pursuance of that conspiracy even if those offences were committed outside the jurisdiction of that Court, as the provisions of S. 239, Cr .P. C. are not controlled by the provisions of S. 177, Cr. P. C., which do not create an absolute prohibition against the trial of offences by a Court other than the one within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed. On a parity of reasoning, the Court having jurisdiction to try the offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy, can try the offence of conspiracy even it was committed outside its jurisdiction. We therefore hold that the order under appeal is correct and, accordingly, dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1961 SC 1601