Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This reference has been made by a Division Bench of this Court as the learned Judges (Guha Ray. J. and N.K. Sen, J.) found themselves in disagreement with the decision of another Division Bench in Bisseswar v Emperor on the important question whether a Court which, has jurisdiction to try an offence of conspiracy having been committed within the local limits of its jurisdiction has also jurisdiction to try offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy, though, committed outside the local limits of the Court's jurisdiction. The question arose before Guha Ray, J., and N.K. Sen, J. in an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made by one Jiban Banerjee. Jiban along with 23 other persons were committed to the Court of Sessions, 24 Parganas, by the Police Magistrate, Sealdah, to take their trial on charges under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C and 489-D read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Against Jiban there was a charge for a specific offence under Section 489D of the Indian Penal Code alleged to have been committed in pursuance of the conspiracy. There were, it may be mentioned, similar charges for specific offences, said to have been committed in pursuance of the conspiracy, against some of the other persons. Before trial commenced in the Sessions Court, an application was made by Jiban praying that the specific charge of Section 489D of the Indian Penal Code should be excluded from the trial on the ground that the Police Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hold the enquiry under Chapter XVIII into this offence and the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to try this offence of Section 489D, inasmuch as the offence was alleged to have been committed at Murigram, Howrah, which was admittedly beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court as well as of the Sessions Court.

2. It appears that Ramani Mohan Das, who was one of the 24 accused and against whom there was a further charge under Section 489D of the Criminal Procedure Code, was tendered pardon by the Sessions Court, under Section 338 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was contended by the petitioner that the tender of this pardon was illegal as the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 489D as against Ramani Mohan, that offence having been committed on the prosecution case beyond the jurisdiction of the Alipore Court.

3. One Dilip Kumar Roy Choudhary, one of the 24 accused, committed for trial on a charge of conspiracy, was also tendered pardon by the Sessions Court. It was contended that this tender was illegal.

4. On this application by Jiban Banerjee a Rule was issued by the Division Bench calling upon the District Magistrate and also on Dilip Kumar Roy Choudhary and Ramani Mohan Das to show cause why the charge under Section 489D of the Indian Penal Code against Jiban, should not be quashed and also why the order referred to in the petition, tendering pardon to the two accused persons Dilip Kumar Roy Choudhary and Ramani Mohan Das, should not be set aside.

5. At the hearing of the Rule it was conceded by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the Sessions Court had jurisdiction to try the offence of conspiracy. On the authority of the decision in Bisseswar's case it was contended, however, that the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 489D against the petitioner as it was committed, on the prosecution case, outside the local limits of the Magistrate's jurisdiction and the Sessions Court's jurisdiction. The referring Judges were of opinion that the provisions of Section 239(d) and Section 235(1) Criminal Procedure Code should reasonably be read as partial exceptions to the general rule laid down in Section 177 Criminal Procedure Code, with the result that "when an offence of conspiracy has been already taken cognisance of by the Court concerned, it was entitled to try at the same trial the specific charges arising out of overt acts against individual accused persons although those overt acts or some of them may have been committed outside the local limits of that court's jurisdiction."