- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
L. N. Mukherjee v. State Of Madras .
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal, brought by special leave, challenges an order of the Madras High Court that dismissed an application seeking to quash the commitment of a case to the Court of Session at Madras. The commitment was for trial of offences including criminal conspiracy to cheat under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and forgery alleged to have been committed in pursuance of that conspiracy.
The prosecution alleges that the conspiracy was committed at Calcutta, while the offences carried out in pursuance of the conspiracy occurred within the jurisdiction of the Court of Session at Madras. The appellant sought quashing on the ground that the Madras courts lacked jurisdiction to try the conspiracy offence. The High Court rejected this contention and dismissed the application, leading to the present appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the offence of conspiracy alleged to have been committed at Calcutta can be tried by the Court of Session at Madras, given that the offences in pursuance of the conspiracy are alleged to have occurred within Madras’s jurisdiction.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1959 | 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 its territorial jurisdiction, because Section 239 CrPC is not controlled by Section 177 CrPC; Section 177 does not create an absolute prohibition against trial by a court other than where the offence was committed. | On parity of reasoning, if a court has jurisdiction to try offences committed in pursuance of a conspiracy within its jurisdiction, it can also try the conspiracy itself even if the conspiracy was committed outside its territorial jurisdiction. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court identified a single determinative question: whether the Madras Court of Session could try a conspiracy alleged to have been formed in Calcutta, when the acts in pursuance of that conspiracy were alleged to have occurred in Madras.
In resolving this question, the Court relied on its decision delivered the same day in Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal (Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1959). In that case, the Court held that Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits joint trials and is not constrained by Section 177 CrPC; consequently, a court with jurisdiction over a conspiracy can try related substantive offences committed outside its territorial jurisdiction because Section 177 does not impose an absolute bar.
Applying this principle by parity of reasoning, the Court concluded that the converse also holds: a court that has jurisdiction over offences committed in pursuance of a conspiracy within its territory can try the conspiracy count even if the conspiracy itself was formed outside its territory. On this basis, the Court affirmed that the Madras Court of Session could try the conspiracy alleged to have been committed at Calcutta since the related offences in pursuance of that conspiracy were within Madras’s jurisdiction.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: APPEAL DISMISSED. The Court held that the order under appeal was correct and dismissed the appeal.
Implications: The commitment to the Madras Court of Session stands, and that court may try both the conspiracy alleged to have been formed at Calcutta and the offences alleged to have been committed in pursuance of the conspiracy within Madras. The decision affects the parties by allowing the prosecution to proceed in Madras; the opinion does not discuss broader implications beyond this application of Sections 239 and 177 CrPC to jurisdiction over conspiracy and related offences.
Raghubar Dayal, J.— 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 to cheat under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC, 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 v. 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 Section 239 CrPC, are not controlled by the provisions of Section 177 CrPC, 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 if it was committed outside its jurisdiction. We therefore hold that the order under appeal is correct and, accordingly, dismiss this appeal.
Alert