L. N. MUKHERJEE versus THE STATE OF MADRAS

Citation: [1962] 2 S.C.R. 116 · Decided: 19-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

Pur11slintlttmdaJ 
l>almitt 
v. 
Slttle of 
W esl Rengal 
Ragltubar 
D•y•I ] . 
April i9. 
116 
SUPRE..'1E COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
addressed to the appellant's firm is not proved to have 
returned to the dead-letter office or to the Chief Con-
troller of Imports and Exports. If it was delivered by 
the postman at the Shop Xo. 16, ordinary courteRy 
requires that that shop would have Rent over the 
letter to thl' neighbouring Shop Xo. 19. The appel-
l1int's conduce in not ta.king any action to find out 
w'ia.t was the result of his rrprcsentation to the Chief 
Controller of Imports and Exports is consistent with 
the view that he did receive the reply of the Chief 
Controller of Imports and Exports. 
In the l'ircum-
stance8, an expression of opinion t}rn.t. t lie let tor would 
have reached the appt•llant cirnnot. b,. said to amount 
to a misdirection. 
Tho learner! Judge is perfectly justified to ask the 
jury to take into consideration the probabilities of a. 
case, whore no definite evidence, in connection with 
an incidental matter, exists. 
We do not consider that the contentions raised do 
a.mount to misdirections. 
In view of the above, we see no force in this appoal 
a.nd accordingly dismiss it. 
Appr.al dismi.ised. 
L. N. MUKHERJEE 
t'. 
THE STATE OF MADRAS 
(K. SuB!lA RA.o and ltao1n:llAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
Criminal Trial- Jurisdiction-Court having jurisdictio>t to 
tr1: offences cammitted in pursua11ce of conspiracy, •f can try the 
oJJence of criminal conspiracy-Code of Cmnii:al Proctdure, 1898 
(V of 1898), ss. 177, 239-lndian Penal Code, 1860 (Act X LV of 
1860). ss. 120-B, 420, 463. 
The appellant was committed to the Court of Session at 
~iadras for trial under s. 120-B read with s. 420 of the Indian 
Penal Code and for committing the offence o! forgery in pursu-
ance of that conspiracy. The Criminal conspiracy was alleged 
to have been cvmmitted at Calcutta, while the other offences in 
' ' .. 
I 
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
117 
pursuance thereof were committed at Madras. It was urged on 
behalf of the appellant that the ;iiadras Court had no jurisdic-
tion to try the offence of crirninal conspiracy. 
H cld, that the court having the jurisdiction to try the 
offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy, has also th(! 
jurisdiction to try the offence of crin1inal conspiracy, even though 
it \Vas committed outside its territorial jurisdiction. 
Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal, 
[IC,62] 
2 S.C.R. ror, applied. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 119 of 1960. 
Appeal by speoia.I leave from the ju<lgment and 
order dated April 14, 1960, of the i\faclrns High 
Court in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 246 of 1960. 
D. N. J[ ukherjee, for the appellant. 
M. S. K. Sastri and T. 111. Sen, for respondent. 
1961. April 19. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
196r 
L. lV. 111ukherje6 
V, 
State of 1'+1adras 
RAGRUBAR DAYAL, J.-This appeal, by special 
llaghubar 
leave, is against the order of the Madras High Court 
Dayal J. 
dismissing the application for quashing the commit-
ment of the case against the appellant, to the Court of 
Session, for trial of offences of criminal conspiracy to 
cheat under s. 120-B read with s. 420, Indian Penal 
Code, and for the offence of forgery committed in pur-
suance of that conspiracy. The criminal conspiracy is 
alleged to have been committed at Calcutta. The 
other offences in pursuance of the conspirncy 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 thP 
Courts at Madras had no jurisdiction to try the offence 
of conspiracy. The High Court did not accept the 
contention and dismissNI f,he application. 
The sole question for cunsideration 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. 
We have held t,his day, in Purushottamdas Dalmia 
v. The State of West Bengal(') that the Court ha,•ing 
(1) [1962] 2 S,C,R. IOI. 
L. N. Muklt1rjr• 
•• 
St till of M odrtis 
Raghuba" 
Doyol j. 
April ao. 
118 
f 
f 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy 
can also try offences committed in pursuance of that 
conspiracy even if those offences were committed out • 
side the jurisdiction of th st Court, ss the provisions of 
s. 239, Criminal Procedure Code, sre not controlled by 
the provisions of s. 177, Cr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.