citedby: 231750

State Of Gujarat vs Bhagchand Mohanlal Dhavan And Anr. on 19 October, 1994

The jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court was to try an offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the overt acts committed in pursuance of the conspiracy were committed in the course of the same transaction which embraced the conspiracy and the acts done under it. It is, however, contended for the appellant, in view of Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the Court having jurisdiction to try the offence of conspiracy cannot try an offence constituted by such overt acts which are committed beyond its jurisdiction and reliance is placed on the decision in Jiban Banerjee v. State. This case undoubtedly supports the appellant's contention. We have considered it carefully and are of the opinion that it has not been rightly decided.

Gujarat High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - C K Thakker - Full Document

The State And Etc. vs Shyamal Kr. Dev And Ors. Etc. on 30 March, 1982

Mr. Dutta refers to a Full Bench decision Jiban Banerjee v. The State. In this case, it was held "The correct position in law is that the provisions as regards joint trial as provided in Section 235 and Section 239 will have application only if the court concerned has jurisdiction under other provisions of law to try the offences sought to be tried together. Thus if under other provisions of the Criminal P. C. or any other law a Magistrate has jurisdiction to try offences A, B and C, these offences may be tried together if they come within the provisions of Section 235 or 239; if, on the other hand, of these offences A, B and C the Magistrate has under other provisions, jurisdiction to try offences A and B but not the offence C, only offences A and B can be tried together but not the offence C. "It was, of course suggested by their Lordships that to remove lacuna in law, amendment of Sections 235 and 239 should be made introducing suitable words to provide that a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try any of the offences which may be tried together will have jurisdiction to try all of them.

Calcutta High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Purushottamdas Dalmia vs The State Of West Bengal on 19 April, 1961

11. The jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court to try an offence of criminal conspiracy under s. 120B, Indian Penal Code, is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the overt acts committed in pursuance of the conspiracy were committed in the course of the same transaction which embraced the conspiracy and the acts done under it. It is however contended for the appellant, in view of s. 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the Court having jurisdiction to try the offence of conspiracy cannot try an offence constituted by such overt acts which are committed beyond its jurisdiction and reliance is placed on the decision in Jiban Banerjee v. State . This case undoubtedly supports the appellant's contention. We have considered it carefully and are of opinion that it has not been rightly decided.

Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 79 - R Dayal - Full Document

Purushottam Das Dalmia vs The State Of West Bengal on 19 April, 1961

The jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court to try an offence of criminal conspiracy under s. 120-B, Indian Penal Code, is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the overt acts committed in pursuance of the conspiracy were committed in the course of the same transaction which embraced the conspiracy and the acts done under it. It is however contended for the appellant, in view of s. 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the Court having jurisdiction to try the offence of conspiracy cannot try an offence constituted by such overt acts which are committed beyond its jurisdiction and reliance is placed on the decision in Jiban Banerjee v. State (1). This case undoubtedly supports the appellant's contention. We have considered it carefully and are of Opinion that it has not been rightly decided.

Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 17 - R Dayal - Full Document

Shiwani vs State Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 17 September, 2015

11. The jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court to try an offence of criminal conspiracy under s. 120B, Indian Penal Code, is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the overt acts committed in pursuance of the conspiracy were committed in the course of the same transaction which embraced the conspiracy and the acts done under it. It is however contended for the appellant, in view of s. 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the Court having jurisdiction to try the offence of conspiracy cannot try an offence constituted by such overt acts which are committed beyond its jurisdiction and reliance is placed on the decision Crl.Rev.637/2014 Page 13 of 17 in Jiban Banerjee v. State: AIR1959Cal500. This case undoubtedly supports the appellant's contention. We have considered it carefully and are of opinion that it has not been rightly decided.

Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S P Garg - Full Document

Income Tax Office vs Anil Tuteja & Ors. on 8 January, 2024

"10. The jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court to try an offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the overt acts committed in pursuance of the conspiracy were committed in the course of the same transaction which embraced the conspiracy and the acts done under it. It is however contended for the appellant, in view of Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the court having jurisdiction to try the offence of conspiracy cannot try offence constituted by such overt acts which are committed beyond its jurisdiction and reliance is placed on the decision in Jiban Banerjee v. State. This case undoubtedly supports the appellant's contention. We have considered it carefully and are of opinion that it has not been rightly decided.

Delhi High Court Cites 91 - Cited by 0 - T R Gedela - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search