Skip to content


Prag Das Bhargava and anr. Vs. Daulat Ram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in31Ind.Cas.1001
AppellantPrag Das Bhargava and anr.
RespondentDaulat Ram
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 177, 179 - offence committed at one place, discovery of, at another--trial--jurisdiction--penal code (act xlv of 1860), sections 420, 265. - - the applicants complain that the magistrate in agra had no jurisdiction to enquire into the case. i am quite satisfied that the magistrate at agra has no jurisdiction......code provides that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed. in my opinion, the alleged offences, if committed, were committed in meerut and not at agra and, therefore, prima facie section 177 applies. section 179 is 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 enquired 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.' there are several illustrations given to the section. the first is 'a is wounded within the local limits of the jurisdiction of court, x, and dies within the local.....
Judgment:

Henry Richards, C.J.

1. Prag Das Bhargava and Kundan Lal have been charged with offences under Sections 420 and 265 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the complainant was cheated, that is to say, that he was induced to part with his money at Meerut on the false representation that, a certain barrel contained a certain amount of spirits. When the barrel reached Agra, it is alleged that it was discovered that the barrel did not contain the amount of spirit that it had been represented to contain. The charge under Section 265 is that the accused used a wrong measure. Undoubtedly if a wrong measure was used it was used in Meerut. The applicants complain that the Magistrate in Agra had no jurisdiction to enquire into the case. Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed. In my opinion, the alleged offences, if committed, were committed in Meerut and not at Agra and, therefore, prima facie Section 177 applies. Section 179 is 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 enquired 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.' There are several illustrations given to the section. The first is 'A is wounded within the local limits of the jurisdiction of Court, X, and dies within the local limits of the jurisdiction of Court Z. The offence of culpable homicide of A may be enquired into or tried either by X or Z.' I think it is quite clear that Section 179 does not apply to the circumstances of the present case. The accused are not charged with the commission of any offence 'by reason of anything which has been done or any consequence which has ensued at Meerut.' The discovery of the alleged fraud at Agra after the goods were delivered, cannot be said to be a consequence which has ensued' within the meaning of this section. I am quite satisfied that the Magistrate at Agra has no jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate may be informed of this judgment.


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