Skip to content


Kesar Lal Etc. Vs. State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revision Appeal No. 255 of 1974
Judge
Reported inILR1975Delhi608; 1975RLR260
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 235; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 468
AppellantKesar Lal Etc.
RespondentState
Advocates: B.S. Sethi and; D.C. Mathur, Advs
Cases ReferredPurushottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal
Excerpt:
.....to 184, cr. p.c. are not the only exceptions to the general rule under section 177 cr. p.c. if the offences committed at different places form part of the same transaction, then also they can be tried by the court having jurisdiction to try any one of the said offences by virtue of sections 235 to 239 cr. p.c. so where the offences under sections 468 and 470 read with section 34 ipc which are said to have been committed at nagpur are offences only by reason of their relation to the offence of theft alleged to have been committed by the petitioners at delhi :; that the courts at delhi have jurisdiction to try the petitioners not only for the offences under sections 379 and 411 read with section 34 ipc but also for the offences under sections 468, 471 and 420 read with section 34 ipc. - ..........the intention of the legislature that the court having jurisdiction to try certain offences try an offence committed in the course of the same transaction, but' beyond its jurisdiction.' (10) there can be no doubt that the offence under sections 468, 471 and 420 read with section 34 indian penal code which are said to have been committed at nagpur are offences only by reason of their relation to the offence of theft alleged to have been committed by the petitioners at delhi. thereforee, in my view, the courts at delhi had jurisdiction to try the petitioners not only for the offences under sections 379 and 411 read with section 34 indian penal code but also for the offence under sections 468, 471 and 420 read with section 34 indian penal code . the learned magistrate had thus jurisdiction.....
Judgment:

M.R.A. Ansari, J.

(1) The two petitioners herein, keshav Chand and Ashok Kumar, were challaned before the Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Delhi, for offences under sections 379, 420, 411. 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code . The prosecution case against the petitioners according to the challan was that they had committed theft of a fiat car belonging to Shri K. T. Mirchandani on the night between 26th and 27th April, 1971 when the car was parked outside the Iii class waiting room of the Railway Station New Delhi, and that after changing the registration number of the car and making false entries in the registration certificate, the petitioners had sold the car at Nagpur to one Suresh Khanna for Rs. 15,000.00 . When the case came up turn consideration b

(2) Under section 177 Criminal Procedure Code

'EVERY offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed.'

(3) Sections 178 to 184 Criminal Procedure Code . are exceptions to the general rule laid by section 177 Criminal Procedure Code . Section 179 which has been noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge reads 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 had been done, or any such consequence has ensued'.

(4) The learned Additional Sessions Judge is perhaps right in this view that the offences under sections 468, 471 and 420 Indian Penal Code which were said to have been committed by the petitioners at Nagpur are not consequences of the offence of theft committed by the petitioners at Delhi. But section 179 is not the only exception to the general rule under section 177 Criminal Procedure Code . section 180 Criminal Procedure Code . which has not been noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is also an exception to the general rule and it reads as follows:

'WHEN an act is offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence or which would be an offence if the doer were capable of committing an offence, a charge of the first-mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction either act was done.'

(5) The following three illustrations have been given to section 180 Cr.P.C. :

'(A) A charge of abetment may be inquired into or tried either by the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the abetment was committed, or by the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the offence abetted was committed. (b) A charge of receiving or retaining stolen goods may be inquired into or tried either by the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the goods were stolen, or by any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any of them were at any time dishonestly received or retained. (c) A charge of wrongfully concealing a person known to have been kidnapped may be inquired into or tried by the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the wrongful concealing, or by the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the kidnapping, took place.'

(6) These illustrations are not exhaustive and there will be any number of other cases which will fall within the scope of section 180 Criminal Procedure Code . For instance, a murder might have been committed at Delhi and the body of the deceased might have been taken to Nagpur and there with the intention of causing disappearance of the of the offence of murder. The burial of the body at Nagpur a person with the intention-.of '.causing-disappearance of evidence of the offence of murder would be an offence by Bagson of its relation to the offence of murder which was committed at Delhi. The Courts at Delhi would, thereforee, have jurisdiction under section 180 Criminal Procedure Code . to try persons charged both under section 302 as well as under section 201 Indian Penal Code , although the offence under section 201 Indian Penal Code was committed outside their territorial jurisdiction.

(7) Further, sections 178 to 184 Criminal Procedure Code . are not the only exceptions to the general rule under section 177 Criminal Procedure Code . If the offences committed at different places form part of the same transaction, then also they can be tried by the Court having jurisdiction to try any one of the said offences by viture of sections 235 to 239 Criminal Procedure Code . Reference may be made in this connection to a decision of the Supreme Court in Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal : 1961CriLJ728 and the following observations of the Supreme Court in that case may be quoted :----

'IT is further significant to notice the difference in the language of S. 177 and S. 233. Section 177 simply says that ordinarily every offence would be tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed. It does not say that it would be tried by such Court except in the cases mentioned in Ss. 179 to 185 and 188 or. in cases specially provided by any other provision of law. It leaves the place of trial open. Its provisions are not peremptory. There is no reason why the provisions of Ss. 233 to 239 may not also provide exceptions to S. 177, if they do permit the trial of a particular offence along with others in one Court, xx. xx. xx. xx. xx. xx. xx. xx. xx. xx. xx. xx.

(8) It is true that it is not stated in express terms either in S. 235 or S. 239, that their provisions would justify the joint trial of offences or of persons mentioned therein in a Court irrespective of the fact whether the offences to be tried were committed within the jurisdiction of that particular Court or not. But such, in our opinion, should be the interpretation of the provisions in these two sections. The sections do not expressly state that all such offences which can be charged and tried togther or for which various persons can be charged and tried together must take place within the jurisdiction of the Court trying them. The provisions are in general terms, xx. xx. xx. xx. xx. xx. xx. xx. xx.

(9) As Ss. 235 and 239 of the Code are enabling sections, The Legislature, rightly, did not use the expression which would have made it incumbent on the Court to try a person for the different offences committed in the course of the same transaction together. The omission to make such peremptory provision does not. necessarily indicate the intention of the legislature that the Court having jurisdiction to try certain offences try an offence committed in the course of the same transaction, but' beyond its jurisdiction.'

(10) There can be no doubt that the offence under sections 468, 471 and 420 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code which are said to have been committed at Nagpur are offences only by reason of their relation to the offence of theft alleged to have been committed by the petitioners at Delhi. thereforee, in my view, the Courts at Delhi had jurisdiction to try the petitioners not only for the offences under sections 379 and 411 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code but also for the offence under sections 468, 471 and 420 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code . The learned Magistrate had thus jurisdiction to try the petitioners for offences covered by all the charges framed by him against the petitioners and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was wrong in his view that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the petitioners for the offences under sections 468, 471 and 420 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code .

(11) In the result, the reference is not accepted and the petition is dismissed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 13th January, 1975.


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