LexPURUSHOTTAMDAS DALMIA versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 101 PURUSHOTTAMDAS DALMIA v. THE STATE OF "WEST BENGAL (K. SUBBA RAO antl RAGUUBAR DAYAL, ,JJ.) Criminal Trial-]urisdiction--Court trying criminal conspi- racy committed within its territvriul furisdiction, if can try offences in pursuance of such conspiracy committed without - Code of Crimi- nal Procedure, r898 (Act V of 1898), ss. r77, 3.15· 337(a)--1ndian Penal Code, r86o (Act XLV of r86o), ss. I20B, 466, 471, The appellant was convicted by the Court of Session, High Court, Calcutta, of offences under s. l20B read with s 471 and s. 471 read with s. 466 of the Indian Penal Code in rPspect of an import licence. His appeal against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Junge was summarily dismissed by the High Court. Although the conspiracy was eut<'recl into at Calcutta the offences of using the forged docume~ts as genuine were committed at Madras. It was contended on behalf of the appellant in this Conrt that the said offences having been comnci t- ted outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta Courts, they had no jurisdiction to try the offences under s. 471 read with s. 466 of the Indian Penal Code, even !bough committed in pursuance of the conspiracy and in course of the same tran- saction. Held, that the desirability of trying all the overt acts con1rnitted in pursuance of a conspiracy together is obvious and ss. 177 and 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, properly construed, leave no manner of doubt that the court which has the jurisdictio~. t'? try the offence of criminal conspiracy hos also the 1ur1st11ct1on to try all the overt acts <>1mmitted in pursuance of it even though outsi<le its territorial jurisdiction. ]iban Banerjee v. State, A.LR. '959 Cal. 500, overruled. Pritam Singh v, The State of Punjab, A.LR. 1956 S.C. 415, referred to. Babula! Choukhani v. The King Emperor, (1938) LR. 60 I.A. 158, relied on. ' It is evident from the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure that of the two types of jurisdiction of a criminal court, namely, (r) that of trying a particular offence and (2) its territorial jurisdiction, while the former go1•s to the root of the matter and any transgrnssion of it renders the ent1r.c trial void, the latte1 is not of a peremptory character and !ca''" the place of trial open. Assistant Sessions ]ttdge, North Arcot v. Ramaswami Asari, (1914) I.LR. 38 Mad. 779, referred to. Although ss. 235 and 239(a) of the Code of Criminal Proce- dure do not expressly so provide, there can be no doubt that April I9. 1961 Purtultoll••dcas Doi-'" f l ~··'·~-' :~,.· ::-.·-'-'-'",<I v. 51111• of W111 Blftt•l 102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) they con template the joint trial of offences and perso11s mention- ed therein in a court whether or not all the offences to be tried ~y ~tare r.om.mitted within its territorial jurisdiction, the only hm1tatton bemg that the offences must have been committed in the course of the same transaction. Section 177 ol the Code, there fore, does not control s. 239. No presumption as to the approval of the LegiJJature of a particular construction of a statute can be draW11 from the absence of any statutory modification of its provisiona unless there is a consistent series of decisions in favour of that construction. Case-law discussed. CRIMINAL API'BLLATE J~ISDICTION: Criminal· Appeal No. 51 of 1959. Appeal by specie.I, leave from the judgment and order dated May 16, 1958, of the Caioutt. High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1958. · . · . · A. S. R. Chari, K. C. Jain and B. P . .Maliefhwart, for the e.ppella.nt. N. C. Chat~rjee, II. R. Khaltna and D. Gupta, for respondent. 1961. Aptil 19. The Judgment of the Court waa delivered by RAGHUBAB DAYAL, J.-Thia appeal, by special leave, is from the order of the Calcutta. High Court dated ~fay 16, 1958, summarily dismissing the appeal of the appellant from the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court convicting him on jury trial of offences under s. 120-B read with s. 471, Indian Pena.I Code, and on two counts nnder s. 471 read with 8, 466, Indian Pena.I Code, with respect to two docu- ments. L. N. Ka.lya.na.m, who was also tried e.t the same trial and convicted of the offcnooe under s. 120-B rt>e.d with R. 4,71, Indian Pena.I Code, two counts under 8, 466, Indian Penal Code, and of the offence under 8 • 109, read with s. 471, Indian Pen&l Code, did
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.