L N MUKHERJEE Vs. STATE OF MADRAS
LAWS(SC)-1961-4-19
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on
April 19,1961
L.N.MUKHERJEE
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADRAS
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
ISHWARLAL KASANJI NAIK VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1963-7-8] [REFERRED]STATE OF GUJARAT VS. BHAGCHAND MOHANLAL DHAVAN [LAWS(GJH)-1994-10-14] [RELIED ON]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. JUHIE SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2008-2-177] [REFERRED TO]
CHITTARANJAN DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1962-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. MAN MOHAN LAL [LAWS(ORI)-1965-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. ANJANABAI WIFE OF MOHAN DAHALE [LAWS(BOM)-1997-2-57] [REFERRED TO]
SATHEESH N V VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2009-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR SAXSENA VS. STATE OF CHHATISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2006-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK DAS VS. RANJANA DAS [LAWS(CHH)-2006-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
KHETMAL SONI VS. STATE OF CHHATISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2007-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT KAUR VS. GURDEEP KAUR [LAWS(CHH)-2007-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-1968-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-1968-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL GHAFFAR VS. SAWAL RAM [LAWS(PAT)-1968-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY AGGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1993-5-55] [RELIED ON]
MOHAN BAITHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2001-3-48] [REFERRED]
C B I A H D PATNA VS. BRIJ BHUSHAN PRASHAD [LAWS(SC)-2001-10-56] [REFERRED]
PREMKUMAR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-2008-12-125] [REFERRED TO]
Y ABRAHAM AJITH VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHENNAI [LAWS(SC)-2004-8-108] [REFERRED TO]
Y A AJIT VS. SOFANA AJIT [LAWS(SC)-2007-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
K T MOHAMMED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1987-12-8] [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH ANTONY VS. DY COMMR OF AGRL I T AND S T [LAWS(KER)-1994-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. SIMRANJIT SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1986-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
ANUPAM VASHISHTH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2012-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
VAKIL KAPOOR VS. STATE OF C G [LAWS(CHH)-2006-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
ANSHU DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2010-3-236] [REFERRED TO]
JASJIT SINGH BAKSHI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2008-4-55] [REFERRED TO]
SATWANT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2008-5-81] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE VS. KUMARPAL [LAWS(DLH)-2007-10-333] [REFERRED TO]
PARVEEN BHATIA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2002-5-122] [REFERRED TO]
RAMZAN ANSARI SON OF MD. YAR ANSARI, DELEGATE, BHABHUA COOPERATIVE COLD STORAGE SOCIETY LTD., BHABHUA, DISTRICT VS. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA AND ORS. (IN 7581, 11468, 11807), STATE OF BIHAR (IN 9993, 14376), STATE OF BIHAR THE SECRETARY OF THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, BIHAR, PATNA (IN 13 [LAWS(PAT)-2011-9-194] [REFERRED TO]
UPENDRA RAI S/O LATE BRAHMDEO RAI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-1-31] [REFERRED TO]
PARTEEK BANSAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-3-111] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ CHHABRA & OTHERS VS. STATE OF H P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-6-261] [REFERRED TO]
MST MAHJABEEN AND OTHERS VS. SHEELA RASHID [LAWS(J&K)-2017-7-23] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM SINGH VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(P&H)-2021-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Raghubar Dayal, J. -
(1.)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 vs. State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1959 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.
(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 vs. State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1959 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.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.