Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
L. N. MUKHERJEE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF MADRAS
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
19/04/1961
BENCH:
DAYAL, RAGHUBAR
BENCH:
DAYAL, RAGHUBAR
SUBBARAO, K.
CITATION:
1961 AIR 1601 1962 SCR (2) 116
CITATOR INFO :
R 1963 SC1620 (23)
ACT:
Criminal Trial-jurisdiction-Court having jurisdiction to try
offences committed in Pursuance of conspiracy, if can try
the offence of criminal conspiracy-Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), SS. 177, 239-Indian Penal Code,
1860 (Act XLV of 1860), SS. 120-B, 420, 463.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant was committed to the Court of Session at
Madras for trial under s. 120-B read with s. 420 of the
Indian Penal Code and for committing the offence of forgery
in pursuance of that conspiracy. The Criminal conspiracy
was alleged to have been committed at Calcutta, while the
other offences in
117
pursuance thereof were committed at Madras. It was urged on
behalf of the appellant that the Madras Court had no
jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy.
Held, that the court having the jurisdiction to try the
offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy, has also
the jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy,
even though it was committed. outside its territorial
jurisdiction.
Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of wesst Bengal, [1962] 2
S.C.R. 101, applied.
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL, APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 119 of
1960.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
April 14, 1960, of the Madras High Court in Cr. Misc.
Petition No. 246 of 1960,
D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant.
M. S. K. Sastri and T. M. Sen, for respondent.
1961. April 19. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
the appellant, to the Court of Session, for trial of
offences of criminal conspiracy to cheat under s. 120-B read
with s. 420, Indian Penal Code, 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.
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.
We have held this day, in Purushottamdas Dalmia v. The
State of West Bengal (1) that the Court having
(1) [1962] 2S.C.R. 101.
118
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,
Criminal Procedure Code, are not controlled by the
provisions of s. 177, Criminal Procedure Code,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 con,-
,piracy even if it was committed outside its jurisdiction.
We therefore hold that the order under appeal is correct
and, accordingly, dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.