Skip to content


Sirdar Meru Vs. Jetha Bhai Amirbhai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 268 of 1906
Judge
Reported in(1906)8BOMLR513
AppellantSirdar Meru
RespondentJetha Bhai Amirbhai
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
.....xlv of 1860), section 328-grievous hurt.; the complainant was assaulted by the accused within the baroda territory, and his log was completely broken in that territory. he was brought into a hospital within the british territory in consequence of this injury, where he was detained for 57 days, during which period ho was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. he tiled a complaint for grievous hurt in a british court. the magistrate sought to obtain the certificate from the political agent at baroda, as required by section 188 of the criminal procedure code. on his failing to obtain it he ordered the papers in the case to be filed under section 203 of the criminal procedure code. the complainant thereupon applied to the high court contending that the magistrate ought to have proceeded..........that according to the case for prosecution he was assaulted by these two persons within the baroda territory and the magistrate has found that his leg was completely broken in that territory. but it also appears that the complainant was brought into the hospital at anand in consequence of this injury and that he was not able to follow his ordinary pursuits for a period of over a month.3. the magistrate has held that he has no jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.4. section 179 criminal procedure code runs as follows ;-when a person is accused of the commission of any offence by reason of anything which has been done, and of any consequence which has ensued, such offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any such thing has.....
Judgment:

Russell, J.

1. In this case the complainant applied for revision of the order of the Magistrate, 2nd Class An and, dated the 2nd October 1905, which dismissed under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, his complaint against one Jethabhai and another on a charge of grievous hurt under Section 325, Indian Penal Code.

2. It appears that according to the case for prosecution he was assaulted by these two persons within the Baroda Territory and the Magistrate has found that his leg was completely broken in that territory. But it also appears that the complainant was brought into the hospital at Anand in consequence of this injury and that he was not able to follow his ordinary pursuits for a period of over a month.

3. The Magistrate has held that he has no jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

4. Section 179 Criminal Procedure Code runs as follows ;-

When a person is accused of the commission of any offence by reason of anything which has been done, and of any consequence which has ensued, such offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any such thing has been done or any such consequence has ensued.

5. But here it appears to us that the injury, that was done, viz., fracture of the leg, was complete within the Baroda Territory. If the offence charged was incomplete until some ingredient of the offence had ensued within British India as a consequence of anything done outside British India, then there might be some support for Mr. Ratanlal's contention. In illustration (d) in Section 179, Criminal Procedure Code, it will be seen that until A died in Poona of the injuries received at Baroda the offence was not complete till his death. In the present case the fracture of the leg was complete within the Baroda Territory.

6. Rule discharged.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //