Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
D D Basu- Code of Criminal Procedure, 5th Edition 2014/THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (ACT NO.
2 OF 1974)/Volume I/CHAPTER XIII JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND
TRIALS/S. 177
S. 177
1. Scope of s. 177.--
This section reproduces old s. 177.
It is not intended to be an exclusive provision. The provisions in s s. 177-184 are cumulative in effect and
intended to facilitate the prosecution of offenders by providing a wider choice of courts for initiating inquiry or
trial. 1
1a) One type deals with the power of the Courts to try particular kinds of offences. This
power is dealt with in Chap. III of the Code (et seq., ante ). This is jurisdiction which goes to the
root of the matter and if a Court not empowered to try a particular offence does try it, the entire
trial is void. 3
1b) The other kind is territorial jurisdiction. But the provisions relating to it in s s.
177et seq. are not peremptory in the same sense as the preceding class of substantive jurisdiction.
Territorial jurisdiction is provided just as a matter of convenience, keeping in mind the
administrative point of view with respect to the work of a particular Court, the convenience of the
accused who will have to meet the charge levelled against/him and the convenience of the
witnesses who have to appear before the Court. 4 The object of the provisions in Chap. XIII is to
enlarge as much as possible the ambit of the sites in which the trial of an offence might be held
and to minimise as much as possible the inconvenience which would be caused to the
prosecution, by the success of a technical plea that the offence was not committed within the local
limits of the jurisdiction of the trying Court. 5
4. 'Shall ordinarily'.--
These words indicate that the general rule embodied in this exception is subject to the exceptions laid down in
the succeeding sections 7 (e.g., s. 178) 8 or some other law, 9 or some other provision of the Code, e.g.., ss. 13,
18, 10 ss. 223-239. 11
1. In some cases, it was thought that the provisions of the Code which constituted
exceptions to the rule in s. 177 were contained in Chap. XIII itself, and that in the absence of any
such exceptional provisions being applicable to a given case, the application of the rule in s. 177
was mandatory. 12 But any such assumption has been repelled by the Supreme Court, 13 holding
that s s. 218-223 [ old ss. 233-239], should also be considered as exceptions to the rule under s.
172, because these other provisions also provide for the trial of one offence along with another in
one Court, irrespective of the fact whether such offences were all committed within the
jurisdiction of that particular Court. It is not the intention behind s. 220 or s. 239, for instance,
that the Court having jurisdiction to try such offences cannot try an offence committed in the
course of the same transaction, simply because it was committed beyond its local jurisdiction. 14
1. As pointed out earlier, the Supreme Court has held 15 that the provisions of the
present Chapter (XIII) are not peremptory, but are intended to enlarge the venue for trial as much
as possible, in order that the prosecution might not be defeated by the technical plea of lack of
territorial jurisdiction. s. 177, thus, leaves the place of trial open. 16
1. As a result of this view of the Supreme Court--
1. The Court having jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy can also try
all offences committed in pursuance of that conspiracy even if those offences were
committed outside the jurisdiction of that Court. 17 , 18
1. Conversely, the Court having jurisdiction to try the offences committed in
pursuance of a conspiracy can try the offence of conspiracy even if it was committed
outside its jurisdiction. 19
This view of the Supreme Court 20 , 21 has been incorporated in the Code itself by inserting new s. 184, post.
(See, further, under s. 184].
The expression 'ordinarily' has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in several decisions. The expression,
according to the Supreme Court, indicates that the provision is a general one and must be read subject to the
special provisions contained in other sections of the Chapter and that the word 'ordinarily' need not be limited to
those specially provided for by the law and exception may be provided by law on consideration of convenience
or may be implied from other provision of law permitting joint trial of offence by the same court. 22
Every offence shall be ordinarily tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. But the said
rule has several exceptions. But when no such exception is applicable to the case in hand, then the Magistrate
had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as no part of cause of action of the case arose within the jurisdiction
of the Court where the proceedings was initiated. 23
Rule of s. 177Cr.P.C., has to be read subject to any special provision which may modify it. These provisions are
contained in ss. 178 to 182, ss. 184 to 186 and s. 188Cr.P.C. The provisions ofs. 219to 223 Cr.P.C. also provide
exceptions tos. 177. 24
Similarly, Sections 5 of the Extradition Act , 1962 overrides ss. 177, 178 and 179Cr.P.C.25
Thus, general rule of jurisdiction is contained in s. 177Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the
crime was committed or completed has the jurisdiction. This rule is subject to the exceptions contained in
subsequent sections.26
The word "ordinarily" occurring in s. 177 must be given its natural meaning and provisions contained in s. 178
would be attracted when s. 177Cr.P.C. cannot be given effect. For the purpose of finding out where enquiry or
trial should be conducted, would be that the offence had taken place wholly or partly of the jurisdiction of one
police station or wholly or partly in the jurisdiction of another police station and would depend upon the fact
situation obtaining in each case.27
4
2. The place where the offence was committed has to be determined from the
definitions of the respective offences in the Penal Code, 33 or other law which created the offence,
read with the averments in the complaint or charge-sheet. 34
2. The 'offence', in this context, means the substantive offence with which the accused
has been charged. Thus, there is no question of determining jurisdiction on the footing of
conspiracy unless there is a definite complaint or charge for the offence of conspiracy under s.
120B,I.P.C.35
First dowry demand was made at the time of marriage at the maternal place of the complainant. The second
demand was made by the accused to the father of the complainant on telephone from his own house. Both
demands merge in each other. So, the matrimonial as well as maternal place of the complainant have
jurisdiction. 36
The complainant resided at place 'J' but married and went to in laws' at 'G'. The allegation of act s of cruelty and
breach of trust were committed at place 'G'. So, the place 'J' has no jurisdiction to try such offence. 37
The trial of dishonor of cheque under s. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is to be held at the place, when the
said negotiable instrument was required to be discharged by payment. So, the Court at another place where the
cheque was presented cannot be said to have the jurisdiction to try the offence. 38
When the act of cruelty was committed at the place 'D' where the complainant resided with her in-laws, the
Court 'D' had territorial jurisdiction and not the place where paternal house of the complainant was situated. 39
1. The offence is committed where the second marriage takes place, 40 subject, of
course, to statutory modifications.
3. Alternative jurisdiction created by s. 182(2),post, is the place where the offender
last resided with his or her spouse by the first marriage; or the wife by the first marriage has taken
up her permanent residence [see under s. 182 (2),post ].
When the second marriage has taken place at 'B', the Court at place 'B' can conduct the enquiry and trial of the
offence of bigamy. But the Court at place 'J' where the complainant first wife is residing there at present has no
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of bigamy. 41
9. Defamation case.--
In respect of a defamation case against a newspaper for publishing a defamatory article in the newspaper, if the
newspaper is printed and published at one place and circulated at another place, the Court within jurisdiction of
which the newspaper is circulated has also the jurisdiction to entertain the case. 42
Bare perusal of the complaint filed under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471I.P.C. clearly showed that the
cause of act ion arose with the jurisdiction of the Court at 'R' in State 'J', investigation was completed in 'R' all
records and documents pertaining to the complaint and charges were before at the Court at 'R'. Only because part
of cause of action arose in another State 'M', the Court of 'R' has definite jurisdiction to proceed with the trial. 49
16. Offence under ss. 4-6, Child Marriage Restraint Act , 1929.--
To be inquired into by a Court having jurisdiction over the place where the marriage ceremony took place, 60 and
not where they lived man and wife after the marriage.
3 Purushottamdas v. State of W.B., AIR 1961 SC 1589 : (1961) 2 Crimes 728; Cf. State of U.P. v. Sabir Ali, AIR 1964 SC 1673 :
(1964) 7 SCR 435 : (1964) 2 Crimes 606.
6 Kiran v. Chaman, AIR 1954 SC 340 : (1955) 1 SCR 117 : 1954 SCJ 514.
8 Banwarilal v. Union of India, AIR 1959 Ker 311 314; Charu v. Emp., AIR 1917 Cal 137(FB) .
9 Narumal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 1329 1332 : 1960 CrLJ 1674.
11 Purushottamdas v. State of W.B., AIR 1961 SC 1589 (para 15-17) : (1962) 2 SCR 101 : (1961) 2 Crimes 728, overruling Siban
v. State, AIR 1959 Cal 500FB .
13 Purushottamdas v. State of W.B., AIR 1961 SC 1589 (para 15-17) : (1962) 2 SCR 101 : (1961) 2 Crimes 728, overruling Jiban
v. State, AIR 1959 Cal 500FB .
14 Purushottamdas v. State of W.B., AIR 1961 SC 1589 (para 15-17) : (1962) 2 SCR 101 : (1961) 2 Crimes 728, overruling Jiban
v. State, AIR 1959 Cal 500FB .
15 Purushottamdas v. State of W.B., AIR 1961 SC 1589 (para 15-17) : (1962) 2 SCR 101 : (1961) 2 Crimes 728, overruling Jiban
v. State, AIR 1959 Cal 500FB .
16 Purushottamdas v. State of W.B., AIR 1961 SC 1589 (para 15-17) : (1962) 2 SCR 101 : (1961) 2 Crimes 728, overruling Jiban
v. State, AIR 1959 Cal 500FB .
17 Purushottamdas v. State of W.B., AIR 1961 SC 1589 (para 15-17) : (1962) 2 SCR 101 : (1961) 2 Crimes 728, overruling Jiban
v. State, AIR 1959 Cal 500FB .
18 Mukherjee v. State of Madras, AIR 1961 SC 1601 : (1962) 2 SCR 116 : (1961) 2 Crimes 736; Banwarilal v. Union of India,
AIR 1963 SC 1620 (para 23) : 1963 Supp (2) SCR 338 : (1963) 2 Crimes 529.
19 Mukherjee v. State of Madras, AIR 1961 SC 1601 : (1962) 2 SCR 116 : (1961) 2 Crimes 736.
20 Purushottamdas v. State of W.B., AIR 1961 SC 1589 (paras 15-17) : (1962) 2 SCR 101 : (1961) 2 Crimes 728, overruling Jiban
v. State, AIR 1959 Cal 500FB .
21 Mukherjee v. State of Madras, AIR 1961 SC 1601 : (1962) 2 SCR 116 : (1961) 2 Crimes 736.
22 Mohan Bhaitha v. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 1490 : (2001) 4 SCC 350 : 2001 CrLJ 1738 : (2001) 2 Crimes 83.
23 Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, AIR 2004 SC 4286 : (2004) 8 SCC 100 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 2134 : 2004 CrLJ 4180.
24 ANZ Grindlays Bank v. Shipping and Clearing (Agents) Pvt. Ltd., 1992 CrLJ 77Cal .
28 Satvindar Kaur v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 728 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1503 : AIR 1999 SC 3596 : 1999
CrLJ 4566.
29 Narumal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 1329 1332 : 1960 CrLJ 1674.
30 Narumal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 1329 1332 : 1960 CrLJ 1674.
8
40 Vasantha v. Krishnaswami, AIR 1967 Mad 241; Cf. Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 635 (paras 26-27, 39) : AIR
1995 SC 1531 : 1995 CrLJ 2926.
46 Bhora Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2008 SC 2666 : (2008) 4 SCC 103 : 2008 CrLJ 3496.
49 Rajendra Ram Chandra Kavalekar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 1792 : (2009) 11 SCC 286 : (2009) 3 SCC 133(Cri) :
2009 CrLJ 1592.
54 Nasiruddin v. State, AIR 1973 SC 186 : (1973) 3 SCC 99 : 1973 CrLJ 241.
55 Dilip v. State of M.P., (1987) CrLJ 212 (para 16) MP. [Contrary view in Jagannath v. State of Haryana, (1983) CrLJ 1574 (para
9) does not appear to be sound].
57 Dilip v. State of M.P., (1987) CrLJ 212 (para 16) MP. [Contrary view in Jagannath v. State of Haryana, (1983) CrLJ 1574 (para
9) does not appear to be sound].
58 Dilip v. State of M.P., (1987) CrLJ 212 (para 16) MP. [Contrary view in Jagannath v. State of Haryana, (1983) CrLJ 1574 (para
9) does not appear to be sound].
61 Rosiline George v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 80 (para 41) : 1994 SCC (Cr) 304 : (1993) 3 Crimes 583.
9
10
D D Basu- Code of Criminal Procedure, 5th Edition 2014/THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (ACT NO.
2 OF 1974)/Volume I/CHAPTER XIII JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND
TRIALS/S. 178
S. 178
1a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed,
or
1b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or
1c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more
local areas than one, or
1d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas,
it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
1. Scope of s. 178. --
This section reproduces old s. 182, while old s. 178 has been numbered s. 185,post, as recommended by the
Law Commission.
Interpreting s. 178Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court has observed that when it is uncertain in which local areas the
offence was committed or when several act s were done at different local areas, the said offence can be inquired
into or tried having the jurisdiction over any of the local areas.76
For the offence of carrying smuggled goods, the Court of the place through which the goods were carried will
have the jurisdiction to try the offence. 77
For trial of offence under s. 138of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 the place, where cheque was issued and
returned unpaid at Pune and the payee having the registered office at Bombay served demand notice from
Bombay, the Court at Bombay along with Court at Pune shall have the jurisdiction to try the offence. 78
If different act s were done at different places, the offence can be inquired into and tried at any one of those
places. 79
When part of the offence was committed in India, Indian Court can try the offence. 80
Complaint alleging acts of cruelty, harassment and demand for dowry has been filed at Delhi Court. Place of
occurrence has been mentioned in the F.I.R. at a place in U.P. Therefore, court of Delhi has no jurisdiction to try
the complaint. 81
Offence under Section 498I.P.C. is not a continuing offence. No harassment in relation to demand of dowry was
caused to the complainant wife within the local limit of jurisdiction of Kanpur where she had been living after
the alleged harassment by the husband. But it not being a continuing offence, no complaint can be filed in the
Court of Kanpur.82
66 State v. Bhiwandiwalla, AIR 1955 Bom 161; cf. P.P. v. Veerabhadrappa, AIR 1953 Mad 204.
67 State of Bihar v. Deo Haran, AIR 1973 SC 908 : 1973 CrLJ 347; Wire Machinery v. State of West Bengal, 1978 CrLJ 839Cal .
68 Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Kukhrejee, AIR 1997 SC 2465 : 1997 CrLJ 2985 : (1997) 5 SCC 30 : 1977 SCC (Cri)
673; Amrendu Jyoti v. State, 2007 CrLJ 154CHH .
70 Manish Ratan v. State of M.P., (2007) 1 SCC 262 : (2007) 1 SCC 336(Cri) : (2006) 4 Crimes 291.
71 Sunita Kumari Kashyap v. State of Bihar, AIR 2011 SC 1674 : (2011) 11 SCC 301.
75 V.K. Puri v. C.B.I., 2007 CrLJ 2929 : (2007) 6 SCC 91 : (2007) 3 SCC 57(Cri) .
76 Satvinder Kaur v. State, (1999) 8 SCC 728 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1503 : AIR 1999 SC 3596 : 1999 CrLJ 4566.
77 Harbans Lal v. State of Haryana, (1998) 8 SCC 319 : 1999 CrLJ 455 : AIR 1999 SC 326.
78 Yashomala Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Tata S.S.L. Ltd, 1998 CrLJ 4352; Sanjay Makkar v. Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd.,
1999 CrLJ 1988All .
79 K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vadhyan Balan, 1999 CrLJ 4606 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 : (1999) 7 SCC 510.
D D Basu- Code of Criminal Procedure, 5th Edition 2014/THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (ACT NO.
2 OF 1974)/Volume I/CHAPTER XIII JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND
TRIALS/ S. 179
S. 179
1. Scope of s. 179.--
This section corresponds to old s. 179, with verbal changes, and omitting the illustrations.
When the complaint of the wife that the accused husband threatened her and her parents and demanded dowry,
the consequences of the offence caused at the place when the complainant resides with her parents. 88
When mere demand for bribe constitutes an offence, the offence can be tried at the place when bribe was
demanded from the complainant. 89
16
When certain defamatory utterances were made at one place and the defamation of the complaint took place at
the place of his residence, the Court of his place of residence would have the jurisdiction to try the offence. 90
The allegation is that miscarriage of the victim girl took place at Jabbalpore even if the acts allegedly took place
at Indore, but as the consequences of that act took place at Jabbalpore, the Court of Jabbalpore would also have
the jurisdiction to try the offence. 91
In case of dishonour of cheque in view of s. 178(b) and s. 179Cr.P.C., the complaint can be filed in the Court
within the jurisdiction of which the cheque has been issued or the place where the cheque was placed for
collection or where the cheque was dishonoured would have the jurisdiction.92
1i) He may be tried at the place (S) where he made the representation to the person
deceived;
1ii) He may be tried at the place (L) where the person deceived delivered money to the
accused as a result of such inducement. 94
1iii) When the misrepresentation is made by letter, the deceit took place where the
person deceived received the letter and also the place from where the accused sent the letter 95
[see further, under s. 182,post ].
But no part of cheating is committed at a place (e.g. , an intermediate station) where it is discovered that the
consignor has committed cheating by despatching a consignment of spurious goods other than that stipulated
(e.g. , husks in place of tea). 1
The allegations against the accused persons are that they obtained loan from the bank by playing fraud with the
help of forged document. The loan was sanctioned from the branch of the bank at "D". The Court at Place "D"
has jurisdiction to try the case even though the procedural part regarding sanction of the loan was completed at
place "B". Therefore, the criminal proceedings at place "D" cannot be quashed. 2
to try the offence in question. Since the offence was registered at place 'N' the Trial Court at place 'N' could try
the offence.4
7. Conspiracy. --
By virtue of the present section, the Court having jurisdiction to try an accused for criminal conspiracy (s. 120B,
I.P.C.) would be competent to try him for all offences committed in pursuance of that conspiracy irrespective of
the fact that any or all of such offences were committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. 5
8. Defamation.--
Where the defamatory statement is made at one place, and is published in a newspaper in another place 6 or the
paper is published at one place and circulated in another place, 7 a complaint under s. 500,I.P.C. may be
instituted in Courts having jurisdiction overboth the places. The reason is that the offence of defamation consists
of making the defamatory utterance and its publication, and the offence is committed on publication. 8
83 Balchand v. State, AIR 1961 Pat 260(DB) . [This is now supported by the liberal view taken by the Supreme Court in
Purushottamdas v. State of W.B., AIR 1961 SC 1589 : 1957 CrLJ 322; State of U.P. v. Chiara, AIR 1957 SC 196 (para 7) : (1962) 2
SCR 101 : (1961) 2 Crimes 728.
91 State of M.P. v. Suresh Kaushal, 2002 CrLJ 2177 : (2003) 11 SCC 126.
92 Canbank Financial Services v. Gitanjali Mohan, 1995 CrLJ 1272Del ; Prabhavati Agencies v. State, 1991 CrLJ 2529.
93 Satwant v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 266 (paras 14, 18) : (1960) 2 SCR 89 : 1960 CrLJ 410; Kamal v. State of U.P., 1999
CrLJ 2345All . This has been expressly provided in new s. 182,post overruling Mobarik v. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 857
(para 23) : 1957 CrLJ 1346 : 1958 SCR 328.
94 Satwant v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 266 (paras 14, 18) : (1960) 2 SCR 89 : 1960 CrLJ 410; Kamal v. State of U.P., 1999
CrLJ 2345All .
18
95 This has been expressly provided in new s. 182,post overruling Mobarik v. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 857 (para 23) : 1957
CrLJ 1346 : 1958 SCR 328.
3 Asit Bhattacharjee v. Hanuman Prasad Ojha, AIR 2007 SC 1925 : (2007) 5 SCC 786 : (2007) 3 SCC 31(Cri) : 2007 CrLJ 3181.
4 Vishwanagath Gupta v. State of Uttranchal, (2007) 11 SCC 633 : 2007 CrLJ 2296.
5 Banwarilal v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1620 (para 23) : 1963 Supp (2) SCR 338 (1963) 2 Crimes 529.
7 Lankesh v. Shivappa, (1994) CrLJ 3510 (para 16) Knt; Bangarappa v. Ganesh, (1984) CrLJ 1618 (paras 7, 18-19) Knt.
8 Subramaniam v. Prabhakar, (1984) CrLJ 1329 (para 9) Bom; Lankesh v. Shivappa, (1994) CrLJ 3510 (para 16) Knt.;
Bangarappa v. Ganesh, (1984) CrLJ 1618 (parass 7, 18-19) Knt.
D D Basu- Code of Criminal Procedure, 5th Edition 2014/THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (ACT NO.
2 OF 1974)/Volume I/CHAPTER XIII JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND
TRIALS/S. 180
S. 180
1. Scope of s. 180.--
This section reproduces old s. 180, omitting Illustrations.
2. S s. 179-180.--
(a) S. 179 is attracted where the offence for which the accused is sought to be tried is
constituted of an act and its consequence, taken together. Thus, if A is wounded in Madras and
dies of his wounds in Bombay, the offence of culpable homicide may be tried either at Madras or
at Bombay, because the offence of homicide was constituted by the wound, followed by death. If
death had not ensued, there could not have been any charge of homicide.
2b) s. 180, on the other hand, applies where one act-is not the consequence of another
act, but becomes an offence only because it is related to other, e.g. , the offence of abatement 11
of a principal offence. Under this section, the charge of abatement may be tried either where the
principal offence or where its abatement took place.
12 State of Punjab v. Nohar, (1984) CrLJ 1153 (para 7) : AIR 1984 SC 1492 : (1984) 3 SCC 512.
13 State of Punjab v. Nohar, (1984) CrLJ 1153 (para 7) : AIR 1984 SC 1492 : (1984) 3 SCC 512.
14 Bhagwan v. Delhi Admn., AIR 1975 SC 1309 (paras 19-20) : (1975) 1 SCC 866 : 1975 CrLJ 1091.
21
22
D D Basu- Code of Criminal Procedure, 5th Edition 2014/THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (ACT NO.
2 OF 1974)/Volume I/CHAPTER XIII JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND
TRIALS/S. 181
S. 181
1. Scope of s. 181. --
This section corresponds to old s. 181, with the changes indicated by italics, and the following drafting changes:
2. Sub-sec. (1).--
4. By the words in italics, the new Code makes it clear that the venue of the offences
specified in this sub-section shall be not only where the accused is found but also where the
offence was committed.
23
7. These offences are : (i) Being a thug [ s. 311,I.P.C.]; (ii) Murder committed by a
thug [s. 300,I.P.C.]; (iii) Dacoity [s. 395]; (vi) Dacoity with Murder s. 396; (v) Belonging to a
gang of dacoits[ s. 400,I.P.C.]; (vi) Escaping from custody [s. 224,I.P.C.].
2a) At Dhanbad, because some consequences of membership of the gang took place at
Dhanbad [ s. 179].
3b) At Dhanbad, under s. 181(1), because the accused were found and arrested there.
1c) At Dhanbad, because some of the dacoities committed by the members were within
Dhanbad [ s. 178(d): old s. 182].
1d) The place in West Bengal where the association was formed and the headquarters of
the gang are located [ s. 177].
4. Sub-sec. (2).--
5. This sub-sec. relates to the offences of kidnapping [ s. 359,I.P.C.] and abduction [s.
362,I.P.C.].
8. The following Courts would have jurisdiction to try such offence:
2. Within whose jurisdiction the person was kidnapped or abducted.
2. Within whose jurisdiction the person was conveyed.
1. Within whose jurisdiction such person was concealed or detained.
5. Sub-sec. (3). --
6. This sub-section relates to the offence of theft [ s. 379]; extortion [ s. 383,I.P.C.];
robbery [s. 390,I.P.C.].
9. These offences may be tried by the following Courts:
3. Where the offence was committed.
3. Where the stolen property was possessed by any person who committed the original
offence.
(c) Where any person received or retained such property, knowing or having reason to
believe that it was stolen property.
4. In this context, the relation between all the three offences connected with the
offence of receiving stolen property, which is referred to in the letter part of this sub-section,
should be noted. Section 410 defines 'stolen property' as property transferred by theft, extortion,
robbery, and property in respect of which the offence of criminal misappropriation or breach of
trust has been committed. Sections 411- 412 define the offence of receiving or retaining stolen
property with knowledge or having reason to believe that it is stolen property. The third part of s.
181(3) makes the place of such receipt of stolen property, an alternative forum for the trial of the
offences of theft, extortion or robbery.
24
2. The venue for the substantive offences under ss. 411-414 is dealt with in sub-sec.
(5), below Old sub-sec. (3) has been divided into sub-secs. (3) and (5), as recommended by the
Law Commission.
6. Sub-sec.(4).--
This sub-section lays down that the jurisdiction for trying the offence of criminal misappropriation [ s.
403,I.P.C.] or criminal breach of trust [s. 405,I.P.C.] shall be either--
7. Sub-sec. (5).--
Sub-section (3) deals with the forum for offences of theft, extortion and robbery, and makes possession of stolen
property an alternative criterion for venue of trial. Sub-section (5), on the other hand, lays down the forum for
the trial of the substantive offences under ss. 411-414, I.P.C., which involves the possession of stolen property as
an ingredient to constitute the offence. The forum for these latter offences is--(a) Where the offence was
committed; or (b) Where the stolen property was possessed by any person with knowledge or reason to believe
that it was stolen property.
17 Cf. Emp. v. Mohrulal, AIR 1936 All 193; Gaukaran v. Saryu, AIR 1921 Pat 85; Santi v. Chandrakant, (1972) CrLJ 794(Pat) .
26
19 Cases where the negative view was taken included. Jivandas, in re., AIR 1930 Bom 490FB ; Patnaik v. Brinnand, AIR 1970
Cal 110 116.
22 Cf. Sheo Shankar v. Mohan, AIR 1921 All 12 [servant bound to account to master at the latter's shop on whose behalf the
servant collected dues from customers]; Emp. v. Mohrulal, AIR 1936 All 193.
23 Mysore Manufacturers v. Ray Choudhury, (1978) CrLJ 577(Ker) ; State of U.P. v. Santosh, (1975) CrLJ 734 (para 7) All.
[contract for delivery after repair].
31 Asit Bhattacharyya v. Hanuman Prasad Ojha, AIR 2007 SC 1925 : (2007) 5 SCC 786 : (2007)M 3 SCC (Cri) 31 : 2007 CrLJ
3181.
27
28
D D Basu- Code of Criminal Procedure, 5th Edition 2014/THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (ACT NO.
2 OF 1974)/Volume I/CHAPTER XIII JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND
TRIALS/S. 182
S. 182
2) Any offence which includes cheating may, if the deception is practised by
means of letters or telecommunication messages, be inquired into or tried by any Court
within whose local jurisdiction such letters or messages were sent or were received; and any
offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property may be inquired into or
tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the property was delivered by the person
deceived or was received by the accused person.
2) Any offence punishable under Section 494 or Section 495 of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860) may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction
the offence was committed or the offender last resided with his or her spouse by the first
marriage,32 [or the wife by the first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the
commission of the offence.]
1. Scope of s. 182. --
There was no corresponding provision in the Code of 1898. This section has been inserted on the
recommendation of the Law Commission. 33
"15.30 Controversial questions have frequently arisen in regard to the venue for the offence of cheating where the
fraudulent or dishonest misrepresentation is made by post, telegram or long distance telephone and where the property of
which the person deceived or cheated is delivered to a common carrier other agent at one place and received by the cheat
at another place. In the such absence of special provisions similar to those contained in s. 181, such questions have
necessarily to be decided with reference to the general principles laid down in s s. 177, 179 and 181, (now s s. 177, 178,
179). Different views have been expressed by the High Courts in applying these principles to the facts of the particular
cases before them." 34
It is clear from the comments of the Law Commission in para. 15.30 that it visualised the provision of s. 182 as
dealing with those cases where deception is practiced by letters or telecommunication messages. Such cases are
classified into two: (i) the earlier part covered all cases of deception by letters or telecommunication messages,
and (ii) the letter part was confined to such deception by letters or telecommunication messages where, in
addition to deception, property is also delivered to the offender. It must be remembered that s. 415,I.P.C. has
29
been recognised to deal with two distinct classes of offences of cheating: (i) where property is delivered and (ii)
where property is not delivered, but an act or omission is done in addition to the practice of deception in both
cases. 35
Dealing with the cases of cheating generally by letters or telecommunication messages, the earlier part of s. 182 ,
CrPC leaves option with the complainant to choose his forum out of any of the two places, viz. , the Court
within whose local jurisdiction the letters or messages were either sent, or received; but in those particular cases
of cheating where delivery of goods is also made in consequence of deception by letters or telecommunication
messages, the jurisdiction is confined to the Court within whose local jurisdiction the goods are delivered. But in
either case , the deception must be practised by letters or telecommunication messages. 36
4a) The Court within whose jurisdiction the second marriage took place;
5b) The Court within whose jurisdiction the offender last resided with his or her spouse
by the first marriage;
3c) The Court within whose jurisdiction the wife by the first marriage has taken up
permanent residence offer the commission of the offence. 37
When after the husband committed the offence of bigamy, the first wife took her residence at her father's house,
the Court of that place will have the jurisdiction to enquire into or try the offence of bigamy filed by the first
wife. 38
However, even where the first wife had living in her father's house from the offence committed by the husband,
the Court of that place would have the jurisdiction in view of s. 182Cr.P.C. as amended by the Amendment Act
of 1978.39
In order that the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offender resided with his or her first spouse must
mean the place where the accused last resided with the first spouse at the time of commission of the offence of
bigamy. The place when the spouse with the other spouse was living prior to the commission of the offence of
bigamy and not at the time of commission of the offence of bigamy would have no jurisdiction to enquire into or
try the offence. 40
The impact of the amended provision of s. 182Cr.P.C. is that the Court within whose local jurisdiction the
offence took place or where the offender last resided with his or her spouse by first marriage would have the
jurisdiction. So, when the first wife last resided with her husband at Warud from which she deserted her
husband, the Court of Warud would have the jurisdiction to try the offence of bigamy also, apart from the place
when the offence of bigamy took place.41
35 Kanumukkala v. State of A.P., AIR 1965 SC 333 : (1964) 7 SCC 410 : (1965) 1 Crimes 355.
38 Amrit Kaur v. Indrajit Kaur, 1991 CrLJ 789Pat ; Mamgappa v. Kelabati, 1986 CrLJ 1719 : ILR (1986) Kant 211.
D D Basu- Code of Criminal Procedure, 5th Edition 2014/THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (ACT NO.
2 OF 1974)/Volume I/CHAPTER XIII JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND
TRIALS/S. 183
S. 183
1. Scope of s. 183.--
It corresponds to old s. 183, with changes recommended by the Law Commission. 42
D D Basu- Code of Criminal Procedure, 5th Edition 2014/THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (ACT NO.
2 OF 1974)/Volume I/CHAPTER XIII JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND
TRIALS/S. 184
S. 184
2a) the offences committed by any person are such that he may be charged with,
and tried at one trial for, each such offence by virtue of the provisions of Section 219,
Section 220 or Section 221, or
2b) the offence or offences committed by several persons are such that they may be
charged with, and tried together by virtue of the provisions of Section 223,
the offences may be inquired into or tried by any Court competent to inquire into or try any of the
offences.
1. Scope of s. 184.--
7. This section is a new provision, engrafted at the recommendation of the Law
Commission, 43 to codify the results of the Supreme Court decisions, 44 which we have already
discussed under s. 177,ante. under the old Code, it was not clear whether the provisions of the
present Chapter regarding territorial jurisdiction were also subject to the provisions in Chap.
XVII, relating to joinder of charges and trials. The Supreme Court answered this question in the
affirmative, though there was no express provision in the present Chapter to that effect. That
lacuna was sought to be filled up by adopting new s. 184.
10. The general provision relating to charges is that there is to be a separate charge for
every distinct offence and every such charge against an accused has to be tried separately [ s. 218;
old s. 233]. To this general rule, exceptions for joinder of charges and trial are laid down in the
succeeding provision of Chap. XVII, post.
These exceptional provisions, mentioned in s. 184 are:
Section 219 [ old s. 234] provides that an accused may be jointly charged with, and tried at one trial for, any
number of offences of the same kind committed within a period of 12 months.
Section 220[ old s. 235] provides that an accused may similarly by charged with, and tried at one trial, for any
number of offences committed by a series of acts which are so connected together as to form the same
transaction, or where the several act s are connected in any of the ways specified in sub-secs. (2)-(4) of s.
220,post.
Section 221[ old ss. 236, 237(1)] speaks of charges in the alternative at the same trial in cases of doubt as to
what offences had been committed by the facts involved.
Section 223 [ old s. 239] deals with joinder of charges and trial as against several accused persons, in the
circumstances specified in the several clauses of that section. It is to be noted that the Proviso, newly added to
that section, widens the ambit of the section by empowering the Court to resort to such joint trial, even in other
35
cases, if the several accused persons themselves apply and the Magistrate is satisfied that they would not be
prejudiced by such joint trial.
The net result of engrafting s. 184 in the new Code would be that in any of the cases covered by the foregoing
provisions, joint trial by the same Court of all the offences or charges would not be bed even if some of those
offences might have been committed outside the local jurisdiction of such Court. In short, s s. 219, 220, 221 and
223 shall additional exceptions to the provision in s. 177 (see, ante ).
However, when two accused persons were charged for conspiracy to forge and fabricate experience certificate at
Delhi and they were used when another accused interviewed at Chandigarh, the charge sheet filed before the
C.J.M. Bhiwani was not proper because no part of offences by the two accused persons was committed at
Bhiwani. Only because the complainant had its head office at Bhiwani, the Court of Bhiwani shall have no
jurisdiction to hold the joint trial of the above two accused persons. 45
44 Purushottam, AIR 1961 SC 1589 : (1962) 2 SCR 101 : (1961) 2 Crimes 728; Mukherjee, AIR 1961 SC 1601 1962 2 SCR 116 :
(1961) 2 Crimes 736.
D D Basu- Code of Criminal Procedure, 5th Edition 2014/THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (ACT NO.
2 OF 1974)/Volume I/CHAPTER XIII JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND
TRIALS/S. 185
S. 185
1. Scope of s. 185.--
8. This section corresponds to old s. 187, with the changes indicated in italics.
11. Where a case is triable by a Court of Session, the Magistrate has, under the
provisions of s s. 177-184, to commit it for trial to the Court of Session within whose jurisdiction
the offence was committed etc. The present section confers power upon the State Government to
direct a particular case or class of cases should be committed to some other sessions division of
the district, 46 --without prejudice to the powers of the High Court and the Supreme Court to
transfer cases, under Cl. 27 of the Letters Patent; ss. 406-407 of the Code (post), Art. 227 of the
Constitution, or some other law.
5. An order under s. 185 thus confers jurisdiction on sessions division other than the
division within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. 47
46 Cf. Haridas v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 All 82; Cf. P.P. v. Reddy, (1976) CrLJ 1252(AP) .
D D Basu- Code of Criminal Procedure, 5th Edition 2014/THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (ACT NO.
2 OF 1974)/Volume I/CHAPTER XIII JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND
TRIALS/S. 186
S. 186
High Court to decide, in case of doubt, district where inquiry or trial shall take place.
Where two or more Courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to which of
them ought to inquire into or try that offence, the question shall be decided--
3a) if the Courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court;
3b) if the Courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by the High Court
within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first
commenced,
and thereupon all other proceedings in respect of that offence shall be discontinued.
1. Scope of s. 186.--
This section reproduces old s. 185, with drafting changes.
Section 186 CrPC is based on the principle of convenience and expediency. The main object and intention of the
Legislature in enacting s. 186 CrPC is to prevent the accused persons from being unnecessarily harassed for the
same offences alleged to have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of more than one courts.
However, the sine qua non for the application of this provision is that the persons implicated as an accused in
different cases must be the same. If these conditions are satisfied then subsequent proceeding has to be
discontinued. 51
2. Cls. (a)-(b).--
When such a question of conflict of jurisdiction arises, the first question to be determined is--who is to decide
this question?
5a) When the conflicting courts are subordinate to the same High Court, little difficulty
arises: the question must be decided by the High Court to which the conflicting courts are
subordinate.
6b) But when the conflicting courts are subordinate to different High Courts. there is a
conflict, in the first instance, between the two or more separate High Court. Hence, some test
must be adopted to answer the question--who will decide the question of jurisdiction between the
41
subordinate Courts. That test is expressly laid down in Cl. (b), viz. ,--that High Court within
whose appellate jurisdiction, the proceedings in question were 'first commenced'. We must,
therefore, next advert to the interpretation of this expression.
14. In the Author's opinion, the same considerations should be relevant under both Cls.
(a) and (b), e.g., convenience of the parties, 53 particularly the accused; 54 nature of the case and
facts thereof; 55 nature of the evidence; 56 the desirability of the trial of an offence of criminal
conspiracy together with overt acts committed in pursuance thereof 57 or abatement thereof, 58 by
the same Court, even though they might have taken place under different jurisdictions; 59 the
applicability of the doctrine of 'issue estoppel', in case different Courts try different parts of the
same offence,; 60 , 61 or offences committed in course of the same transaction. 62 , 63
6. This section shall have no application unless the offences in the two proceedings are
the same and arise out of the same transaction. 64
51 State of Rajasthan v. Bhagwan Das Agrawal , 2014 (1) MLJ (Crl) 236 : 2014 CrLJ 1006.
53 Cf. Purushottamdas v. State of W.B., AIR 1961 SC 1589 (para 11) : (1962) 2 SCR 101 : (1961) 2 Crimes 728.
56 Cf. Purushottamdas v. State of W.B., AIR 1961 SC 1589 (para 11) : (1962) 2 SCR 101 : (1961) 2 Crimes 728.
57 Cf. Purushottamdas v. State of W.B., AIR 1961 SC 1589 (para 11) : (1962) 2 SCR 101 : (1961) 2 Crimes 728.
59 Cf. Purushottamdas v. State of W.B., AIR 1961 SC 1589 (para 11) : (1962) 2 SCR 101 : (1961) 2 Crimes 728.
60 Cf. Purushottamdas v. State of W.B., AIR 1961 SC 1589 (para 11) : (1962) 2 SCR 101 : (1961) 2 Crimes 728.
61 Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 415 422 : 1956 CrLJ 805.
62 Cf. Purushottamdas v. State of W.B., AIR 1961 SC 1589 (para 11) : (1962) 2 SCR 101 : (1961) 2 Crimes 728.
D D Basu- Code of Criminal Procedure, 5th Edition 2014/THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (ACT NO.
2 OF 1974)/Volume I/CHAPTER XIII JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND
TRIALS/S. 187
S. 187
Power to issue summons or warrant for offence committed beyond local jurisdiction.
3) When a Magistrate of the first class sees reason to believe that any person
within his local jurisdiction has committed outside such jurisdiction (whether within or
outside India) an offence which cannot, under the provisions of Sections 177 to 185 (both
inclusive), or any other law for the time being in force, be inquired into or tried within such
jurisdiction but is under some law for the time being in force triable in India, such
Magistrate may inquire into the offence as if it had been committed within such local
jurisdiction and compel such person in the manner hereinbefore provided to appear before
him, and send such person to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to inquire into or try such
offence, or, if such offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and such
person is ready and willing to give bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate acting under this
section, take a bond with or without sureties for his appearance before the Magistrate
having such jurisdiction.
3) When there are more Magistrates than one having such jurisdiction and the
Magistrate acting under this section cannot satisfy himself as to the Magistrate to or before
whom such person should be sent or bound to appear, the case shall be reported for the
orders of the High Court.
1. Scope of s. 187.--
This section corresponds to s. 186 of the Code of 1898, with the changes indicate in italics. When a Judicial
Magistrate of the first Class reasonably suspects a person to have committed an offence (cognizable or non-
cognizable) outside his jurisdiction (whether within or outside India), such Magistrate, though he cannot take
cognizance of the offence, is empowered by this section to inquire into it as if it had been committed within his
jurisdiction, send the person for trial to the Magistrate having jurisdiction; or bind him to appear before such
Magistrate. This provision is supplemental to those in ss. 70-81, ante. 65
D D Basu- Code of Criminal Procedure, 5th Edition 2014/THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (ACT NO.
2 OF 1974)/Volume I/CHAPTER XIII JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND
TRIALS/S. 188
S. 188
1. Scope of s. 188.--
This section (corresponding to old s. 188) 66 codifies two exceptions, acknowledged by International law, to the
general proposition that the jurisdiction over crimes is territorial, namely, that--
3i) A Sovereign does not lose its sovereignty over its in own citizens wherever they
may be residing for the time being;
3ii) The territory of a Sovereign extends to its national ship or aircraft, wherever laying
for the time being and that, accordingly, has jurisdiction over persons aboard such ship or aircraft
even when it is within a foreign territory. 67
When the offence was committed by a person not an Indian citizen and outside Indian neither Indian Penal
Codenor the Code of Criminal Procedure is attracted and s. 188Cr.P.C. does not cover the case of such an
accused who is not an Indian citizen.68
The scheme envisaging s. 188Cr.P.C. is to dispel any objections or plea of want of jurisdiction at the behest of
the fugitive who has committed an offence in any other country, if such person is found anywhere in India and
the offence can be inquired into and tried by any Court in India that may be approached by the victim.73
So, the victim can file a complaint for offences committed by an Indian citizen in abroad to any competent Court
in India which he may find convenient. The expression 'at which he may be found' as used in s. 188Cr.P.C. has
been interpreted by the Supreme Court by observing that the finding of the accused for the purpose ofs.
188Cr.P.C. has to be the Court and not by the Police or the complainant. So, when the accused was a resident of
Mumbai, the complaint filed by the victim at Ghaziabad has been upheld by the Supreme Court. 74
66 With the omission of the 2nd Proviso, as recommended by the Law Commission, 41st Rep., (para 15.66).
68 Fatima Bibi Ahmed Patel v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2008 SC 2392 : (2005) 6 SCC 789 : (2008) 3 SCC 151(Cri) : 2008 CrLJ
3065 : (2008) 2 KLT 907.
69 Central Bank of India v. Ramnarain, AIR 1955 SC 36 38 : 1955 CrLJ 152 : (1955) 1 SCR 697.
70 Central Bank of India v. Ramnarain, AIR 1955 SC 36 38 : 1955 CrLJ 152 : (1955) 1 SCR 697.
71 Central Bank of India v. Ramnarain, AIR 1955 SC 36 38 : 1955 CrLJ 152 : (1955) 1 SCR 697.
72 A V Mohan Rao v. M. Krishna Rao, AIR 2002 SC 2653 : (2002) 6 SCC 174 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1281.
73 Om Hemrajani v. State of U.P., AIR 2005 SC 392 : (2005) 1 SCC 617 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 443 : 2005 CrLJ 665.
74 Om Hemrajani v. State of U.P., AIR 2005 SC 392 : (2005) 1 SCC 617 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 443 : 2005 CrLJ 665.
76 Ajay Agarwal v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1637 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 961 : 1993 CrLJ 2516.
78 Ajay Agarwal v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1637 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 961 : 1993 CrLJ 2516.
47
48
D D Basu- Code of Criminal Procedure, 5th Edition 2014/THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (ACT NO.
2 OF 1974)/Volume I/CHAPTER XIII JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND
TRIALS/S. 189
S. 189
1. Scope of s. 189.--
This provision corresponds to old s. 189 and is consequential upon s. 188.