Skip to content


Queen-empress Vs. Kirpal Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1887)ILR9All523
AppellantQueen-empress
RespondentKirpal Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
jurisdiction - criminal procedure code, section 180--dacoity committed in british territory--dishonest receipt of stolen property in foreign territory. - - in my judgment this contention is well founded, and, this being a question as to jurisdiction, i think we are bound to give the other appellants the benefit of the point raised for one of them......and were transferred to these provinces to be tried for an offence under section 396 of the indian penal code. at the trial they were acquitted of the offence under section 396 of the indian penal code, but were convicted on a charge under section 412. there was no evidence that they had dishonestly or otherwise received or retained in british india any stolen property whatever. the evidence was that they were found in possession in gwalior of property the subject of a dacoity in british india. there is no evidence that they were british subjects. under these circumstances mr. gordon, who appears for the appellant harbban, contends that no offence was proved to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the court. in my judgment this contention is well founded, and, this being a.....
Judgment:

John Edge, Kt., C.J.

1. In this case the three prisoners were arrested in the State of Gwalior on a charge of dacoity, and were transferred to these Provinces to be tried for an offence under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. At the trial they were acquitted of the offence under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, but were convicted on a charge under Section 412. There was no evidence that they had dishonestly or otherwise received or retained in British India any stolen property whatever. The evidence was that they were found in possession in Gwalior of property the subject of a dacoity in British India. There is no evidence that they were British subjects. Under these circumstances Mr. Gordon, who appears for the appellant Harbban, contends that no offence was proved to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the Court. In my judgment this contention is well founded, and, this being a question as to jurisdiction, I think we are bound to give the other appellants the benefit of the point raised for one of them. I am of opinion that these appeals should be allowed, the convictions quashed, and the prisoners discharged.

Brodhurst, J.

2. I concur.


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