9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court to try offences committed at Madras. 2. Legality of charging alternative conspiracies. 3. Alleged misdirections by the learned Judge in charging the jury. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court to try offences committed at Madras: The appellant contended that the offences of using forged documents as genuine were committed at Madras, and therefore, the Calcutta Courts had no jurisdiction to try these offences under Section 471 read with Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment clarified that the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court to try an offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC is not disputed. The Court emphasized the desirability of trying the offence of criminal conspiracy and all overt acts committed in pursuance of it together. It was noted that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be construed to give jurisdiction to the Court trying the offence of criminal conspiracy to try all the overt acts committed in pursuance of that conspiracy. The Court held that the Calcutta Court had jurisdiction to try the appellant for the offences under Section 471 read with Section 466, IPC, even though those offences were committed at Madras. 2. Legality of charging alternative conspiracies: The appellant argued that alternative conspiracies could not be charged as they must be the result of different agreements between the conspirators. The judgment clarified that the charge was one of conspiracy, it being a conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for two years or upwards. The particular offence to be committed was described in the alternative. The charge illustrated the offence in this form due to the uncertainty about the nature of offences to be committed by the conspirators. The Court held that such a charge is justified by the provisions of Section 236 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and does not suffer from any illegality. 3. Alleged misdirections by the learned Judge in charging the jury: The appellant contended that the learned Judge misdirected the jury by expressing strong opinions and presenting certain matters in a biased manner. The judgment noted that the Judge had, at various places, stated that the jury was not bound by his opinion and that it was the function of the jury to decide all questions of fact. The Court found nothing wrong in the Judge telling the jury that even if the endorsements had been made by the proper departmental officer and they were ante-dated, forgery would have been committed. The mistake in the letter dated April 20, 1953, was not considered significant enough to conclude that the letter could not have been delivered to the proper addressee. The Court concluded that the Judge's directions did not amount to misdirections and that the appellant's contentions were without merit. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court to try the offences, the legality of the charge of conspiracy, and the directions provided by the learned Judge to the jury.
|
