L. N. Mukherjee Vs. The State of
Madras  INSC 166 (19 April 1961)
DAYAL, RAGHUBAR SUBBARAO, K.
CITATION: 1961 AIR 1601 1962 SCR (2) 116
CITATOR INFO :
R 1963 SC1620 (23)
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.
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 west
Bengal,  2 S.C.R. 101, applied.
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
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 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)  2S.C.R.
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.