Case Note & Summary
In the Supreme Court of India, the appellant L. N. Mukherjee challenged an order of the Madras High Court dismissing his application to quash the commitment of his case to the Court of Session at Madras. The appellant had been committed for trial on charges under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to criminal conspiracy to cheat, and for the substantive offence of forgery committed in pursuance of that conspiracy. The criminal conspiracy was alleged to have been committed at Calcutta, while the other offences in pursuance of the conspiracy were alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the Court of Session at Madras. The appellant sought quashing of the commitment on the sole ground that the Madras courts had no territorial jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy, which was alleged to have been committed outside their jurisdiction. The Madras High Court rejected this contention and dismissed the application in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 246 of 1960 on April 14, 1960. The appellant then obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The sole question for consideration in the appeal was whether the offence of conspiracy alleged to have been committed at Calcutta could be tried by the Court of Session at Madras. The Supreme Court referred to its decision delivered on the same day in Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal, which had held 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, because the provisions of Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are not controlled by the provisions of Section 177 of the Code, and Section 177 does not create an absolute prohibition against the trial of offences by a court other than the one within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed. Applying the same parity of reasoning, the Supreme Court concluded that the court having jurisdiction to try the offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy should equally have jurisdiction to try the offence of conspiracy itself, even if that conspiracy was committed outside its territorial limits. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the order of the Madras High Court was correct and dismissed the appeal. The decision affirmed that Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is not an absolute bar to territorial jurisdiction in cases of conspiracy and that the joint trial provisions under Section 239 permit the trial of related offences by a court competent to try any of them.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Criminal Conspiracy - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sections 177 and 239; Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 120-B, 420 and 463 - The appellant was committed for trial before the Court of Session at Madras for conspiracy to cheat and forgery; the conspiracy was alleged at Calcutta while the other offences were committed within Madras jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reasoned that since Section 177 CrPC does not create an absolute prohibition against trial by a court other than the one within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed, and Section 239 CrPC is not controlled by Section 177, a court having jurisdiction to try the substantive offences can also try the related conspiracy offence. Held that the Madras Court had jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy even though it was committed outside its territorial jurisdiction, and the appeal was dismissed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the offence of criminal conspiracy alleged to have been committed at Calcutta can be tried by the Court of Session at Madras when the other offences committed in pursuance of that conspiracy were committed within the jurisdiction of that court.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Court of Session at Madras had jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy even though it was committed at Calcutta, because the court having jurisdiction to try the offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy can also try the offence of conspiracy.
Law Points
- Court having jurisdiction to try offences committed in pursuance of conspiracy can also try offence of criminal conspiracy committed outside its jurisdiction
- Section 177 CrPC does not create absolute prohibition against trial by a court other than one within whose jurisdiction offence is committed
- Section 239 CrPC is not controlled by Section 177 CrPC
