Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the conviction of Purushottam Das Dalmia by the Calcutta High Court for offences under Section 120B read with Section 471 and Section 471 read with Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, relating to forged endorsements on an import licence. Dalmia was a partner in the firm Laxminarayan Gourishankar, which had a branch in Calcutta. On April 26, 1952, he applied for an import licence for art silk yarn worth one crore rupees. A provisional licence was issued on May 2, 1952, but it was not confirmed within the required two months, and his appeal against refusal was dismissed in September 1952. The appellant later claimed that in August 1953, he met one Kalyanam in Calcutta, who introduced him to a man named Rajan in Delhi. The file containing the licences was handed over, and two or three days later the licences were returned with alleged forged endorsements of confirmation dated July 2, 1952, and revalidation dated April 25, 1953. Orders were placed on the basis of the revalidated licence, and when the goods arrived at Madras, the customs authorities suspected the genuineness of the endorsements. The matter was handed over to the police, and after investigation, the appellant and Kalyanam were committed to the High Court for trial. Eight charges were framed, including criminal conspiracy under Section 120B read with Sections 466 and 471 IPC and substantive offences of forgery and using forged documents. The jury found Dalmia not guilty on charges of abetment of forgery but guilty of conspiracy under Section 120B read with Section 471 and two counts under Section 471 read with Section 466. Kalyanam was also convicted but did not appeal. The appellant's appeal to the High Court was summarily dismissed, leading to the present appeal by special leave. The primary legal issue was whether the Calcutta High Court had territorial jurisdiction to try the offences under Section 471 read with Section 466 IPC, which were committed at Madras, when they were overt acts of a criminal conspiracy triable at Calcutta. The appellant contended that Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, limited territorial jurisdiction, and relied on Jiban Banerjee v. State. The Supreme Court, after examining the statutory scheme, held that the desirability of trying all overt acts committed in pursuance of a conspiracy together is obvious. Evidence of overt acts is necessary to prove the conspiracy, and the court can conveniently decide both the conspiracy and the overt acts. The Court held that Sections 235 and 239(a) of the CrPC contemplate joint trial of offences committed in the course of the same transaction, irrespective of territorial limits. Section 177 does not control Section 239. The Court overruled Jiban Banerjee v. State and relied on Babulal Choukhani v. King-Emperor. It also distinguished Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab. The Court further observed that territorial jurisdiction is not of a peremptory character and does not render a trial void. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court to try the appellant for the offences committed at Madras as part of the same transaction as the conspiracy.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Joint Trial of Conspiracy and Overt Acts - Court Trying Criminal Conspiracy Can Try Overt Acts Committed Outside Its Territorial Jurisdiction - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sections 177, 235, 239(a) - The appellant was convicted of offences under Section 471 read with Section 466 IPC committed at Madras, while the criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC was entered into at Calcutta and triable there. The Supreme Court held that Sections 235 and 239(a) CrPC contemplate joint trial of offences committed in the course of the same transaction, and Section 177 does not control Section 239. Held that the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to try the overt acts even though they occurred outside its territorial limits; Jiban Banerjee v. State overruled, Babulal Choukhani relied on (Paras 14-21). B) Criminal Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Nature of Territorial Jurisdiction - Territorial Jurisdiction Not Peremptory and Does Not Vitiate Trial - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 177 - The Court distinguished jurisdiction to try a particular offence, which goes to the root of the matter, from territorial jurisdiction, which is not of a peremptory character and leaves the place of trial open. Held that Section 177 does not render a trial void solely because an offence was committed outside the court's territorial limits, particularly when it is part of the same transaction as a conspiracy triable in that court (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Calcutta High Court had territorial jurisdiction to try offences under Section 471 read with Section 466 IPC committed at Madras when they were overt acts of a criminal conspiracy triable at Calcutta; whether alternative conspiracies could be charged in one charge; whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on various matters
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. The Court held that the court which has jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy also has jurisdiction to try all overt acts committed in pursuance of it, even though outside its territorial jurisdiction, if they are committed in the course of the same transaction. Jiban Banerjee v. State was overruled.
Law Points
- Court trying criminal conspiracy has jurisdiction to try all overt acts committed in pursuance of the conspiracy even if outside its territorial jurisdiction
- Sections 235 and 239(a) CrPC contemplate joint trial of offences in same transaction
- Section 177 CrPC does not control Section 239
- territorial jurisdiction is not peremptory and does not vitiate trial
- no presumption of legislative approval from absence of statutory modification
