1959 (3) TMI 78 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court to try offences committed outside its territorial limits in pursuance of a conspiracy.
2. Legality of the tender of pardon by the Sessions Court.
3. Validity of the commitment orders for trial of offences committed outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Court to Try Offences Committed Outside Its Territorial Limits in Pursuance of a Conspiracy:
The primary issue was whether a court with jurisdiction to try an offence of conspiracy also has jurisdiction to try offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy, even if those offences were committed outside the court's territorial limits. The court examined the provisions of Section 235(1) and Section 239(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) in relation to the general rule laid down in Section 177 Cr. P.C., which states, "Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed."

The court concluded that Sections 235 and 239 are enabling provisions for joint trials but do not confer jurisdiction to try offences committed outside the territorial limits of the court's jurisdiction. The court emphasized that jurisdiction must be explicitly conferred and cannot be implied from the provisions allowing joint trials. The judgment reaffirmed the decision in Bisseswar v. Emperor AIR1924Cal1034, stating that the provisions of Sections 235 and 239 do not act as exceptions to the jurisdictional rules laid down in Section 177.

2. Legality of the Tender of Pardon by the Sessions Court:
The court addressed the legality of the tender of pardon to Ramani Mohan Das and Dilip Kumar Roy Choudhury. It was argued that the tender of pardon to Ramani Mohan Das was illegal because the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 489D IPC, as it was committed outside its territorial jurisdiction. The court agreed, stating that the pardon tendered to Ramani Mohan Das was ineffective in law for offences committed outside the court's jurisdiction.

However, the court found that the pardon tendered to Dilip Kumar Roy Choudhury was valid because he was only charged with the offence of conspiracy, which the Sessions Court had jurisdiction to try.

3. Validity of the Commitment Orders for Trial of Offences Committed Outside the Magistrate's Jurisdiction:
The court examined the commitment orders for trial of offences committed outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction. It was determined that the Police Magistrate of Sealdah had no jurisdiction to inquire into the offence under Section 489D IPC alleged to have been committed by Jiban Banerjee, and consequently, the Sessions Court of Alipore had no jurisdiction to try that offence. The court set aside the proceedings of inquiry and the order committing Jiban Banerjee to the Court of Sessions for trial for that offence.

Additionally, the court noted that several other persons had been committed to take their trial on charges of offences committed outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction. These orders of commitment were also deemed invalid in law.

Conclusion:
The court answered the referred questions as follows:
1. No, Sections 235(1) and 239(d) Cr. P.C. are not to be read as exceptions to the general rule laid down in Section 177 Cr. P.C.
2. Yes, Bisseswar's case AIR1924Cal1034 was rightly decided.

The court set aside the proceedings and commitment order against Jiban Banerjee, discharged the rule concerning the pardon tendered to Dilip Kumar Roy Choudhury, and set aside the tender of pardon to Ramani Mohan Das. The judgment highlighted the need for legislative consideration to address the lacuna in the law regarding jurisdiction for joint trials of offences committed in pursuance of a conspiracy.