Sunteți pe pagina 1din 49

1

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

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , 1973 (ACT NO. 2 OF 1974)


CHAPTER XIII

JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND TRIALS

S. 177

Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.


Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed.

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

2. Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts. --


The jurisdiction for trial of offences is of two kinds: 2

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

3. Effect of absence of jurisdiction. --


A defect of jurisdiction, where it is pecuniary or territorial, or where it is in respect of the subject-matter of the
act ion, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by
consent of parties. 6
3

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

5. Section 177Cr. P.C. does not control investigation.--


The complainant wife on being driven out of the house at Patiala lodged a complaint before S.H.O. Patiala. After
she came to Delhi in her father's house, she received threats from the husband. So, she filed an FIR before the
S.H.O. Paschim Vihar, New Delhi under Sections 406 and 498AI.P.C. for the offences at Patiala. The police of
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi started investigation. The husband sought for quashing that investigation on the
ground that the police of the Paschim Vihar has no jurisdiction to investigate the offence alleged to be committed
at Patiala. The High Court quashed the investigation. The Supreme Court set it asides. It is held that there is no
legal bar to the S.H.O. Paschim Vihar to investigate into the FIR lodged with that police station because he has
statutory duty to investigate any cognizable offence in view ofs. 156Cr.P.C., and the High Court committed
illegality by quashing the FIR only because the S.H.O. Paschim Vihar has no territorial jurisdiction and the order
must be set aside.28

6. Power of the Legislature to provide exceptions.--


While s. 177 lays down the general rule as to territorial jurisdiction for criminal inquiries and trial, the word
'ordinarily' indicates that the competent Legislature may, by a special statute, provide a departure 29 from the
general rule in s. 177,e.g., by Sections 134(1) , Railways Act , 1890;s. 66 of the Inland Steam-Vessels Act, 1917;
s. 4,I.P.C. But the departure must be clearly expressed.30

7. '.... Within whose jurisdiction it was committed'.--


Where the commission of the offence arises out of an act of omission, the jurisdiction relates to the place where
the act which is omitted ought to have been done. 31 Thus, where the charge is under the Essential Commodities
Act , for violation of Cl. (7) of the Iron and Steel Control Order, 1956, the jurisdiction would be determined bys.
177 and not 181, and the Court having jurisdiction over the place where the materials received should have been
utilised, i.e. , at the factory of the accused, shall have jurisdiction. 32

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

8. Bigamy (s. 494, I.P.C.).--


5

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

10. Offence under s. 498AI.P.C.--


The Court within whose jurisdiction dowry was demanded and cruelty caused would alone have the jurisdiction.
The complaint filed in any of other place is liable to be quashed. 43
When the offence of cruelty to wife for dowry demand was committed at place 'M' for the major part and also at
place 'C', but none was committed at place 'T', where the wife was residing with her parents, the Court at 'T' had
no jurisdiction. So, the Supreme Court transferred the proceedings at place 'C' where the matrimonial
proceedings were pending. 44
Similar is the case when the offence under Section 498AI.P.C. was committed at place 'S' or 'N' and none at
place 'H', the Court at 'H' had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.45
All the alleged acts as per the complaint had taken place in the State of Punjab. But the complaint was filed in
Sri Ganganagar in the State of Rajasthan against the appellant and challan was filed before the A.C.J.M.,
Ganganagar who framed charges against the appellants under ss. 498A and 406I.P.C. But no part of cause of act
ion took place at Sri Ganganagar even if they were then residing at Sri Ganganagar. The Court of Sri
Ganganagar had no jurisdiction to try the case. So, the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings pending before
the A.C.J.M., Sri Ganganagar, granting liberty to the complainant to file the complaint to appropriate Court in
the State of Punjab.46

11. Offence under Dowry Prohibition Act .--


The Offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and ss. 406 and 498AI.P.C. even though
offence of criminal breach of trust and cruelty were at place 'G', but marriage having taken place at 'B', then part
of cause of action arose at place 'B'. So, the Court at 'B' had territorial jurisdiction to try all above the above
offences.47

12. Offence of forgery and using forged document as genuine.--


The accused forged and fabricated the experience certificate to get the appointment as Transport Officer. The
conspiracy of forging and fabricating the certificate took place at place 'D' and was used at place 'C' where he
was interviewed the Court of either of the two places has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaints, but not the
place 'B' where joined his post after being initially appointed. 48
6

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

13. Offence under Copyright Act .--


The allegation in the petition of complaint did not show as to where the criminal conspiracy was hatched. No
cause of act ion took place at place 'P'. The complaint filed at place 'P' has been quashed by the High Court for
lack of territorial jurisdiction. 50
When no part of cause of action took place pertaining to the commission of offence under s. 498AI.P.C. in the
territorial jurisdiction at place 'A', the order quashing the proceedings and directing the complainant to file the
complaint before the competent court is proper.51
When the offence of cruelty to wife and that of criminal breach of trust took place only at place 'G', the
matrimonial home of the wife, the Court at place 'J' where the parental home of the wife was situated had not
territorial jurisdiction. The order taking cognizance by the Court at place 'J' is liable to be quashed. 52

14. Effect of trial at wrong jurisdiction.--


Section 46Cr.P.C. states that no trial or other proceedings is liable to be set aside for the absence of territorial
jurisdiction, unless it has occasioned failure of justice.53
The objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction has to be taken at the earliest stage and if it is taken, the Court
may quash the proceedings and direct the complainant to file complaint in proper Court. But when the objection
was not taken at the earliest stage, such objection taken before the Supreme Court cannot be sustained when no
prejudice was caused to the accused by trial at wrong Court. 54

15. S s. 177 and 220. --


Under s. 220 where two offences (e.g. , Kidnapping and rape 55 or Kidnapping and emasculation of a body) 56
constitute one transaction, they may be tried together by any Court within whose jurisdiction any of the act s
constituting the offences was committed. 57 That jurisdiction is not lost because it is ultimately held that the acts
did not in the eye of law constitute one or more of the offences. 58
Similar view has been taken with respect to several act s of 'cruelty' under s. 498 A,I.P.C.59
Special Law

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.

17. Extradition Act , 1962.--


The Act, being a special provision dealing with the extradition of fugitive criminals, shall exclude from
application the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In any case, s. 5 of the said Code
gives overriding effect to the special jurisdiction created under any special or local laws. Sections 177, 188 and
190 of the Code have no application to the proceedings under the Act.61
7

1 41st Rep. of the Law Commission, para 15.13.

2 Purushottamdas v. State of W.B., AIR 1961 SC 1589 : (1961) 2 Crimes 728.

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.

4 Purushottamdas v. State of W.B., AIR 1961 SC 1589 : (1961) 2 Crimes 728.

5 Purushottamdas v. State of W.B., AIR 1961 SC 1589 : (1961) 2 Crimes 728.

6 Kiran v. Chaman, AIR 1954 SC 340 : (1955) 1 SCR 117 : 1954 SCJ 514.

7 Nikka Singh v. State, AIR 1952 Punj 186.

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.

10 Haridas, AIR 1959 All 82.

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 .

12 Desai v. State of Mysore, AIR 1956 Mys 46.

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 .

25 Rosiline George v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 80 : (1993) 3 Crimes 583.

26 Nagesh v. State, 1990 CrLJ 2234Kant .

27 Prem Kumar v. State of Kerala, (2008) 17 SCC 264.

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

31 Dhirendra v. State, (1978) CrLJ 637 (para 5).

32 Dhirendra v. State, (1978) CrLJ 637 (para 5).

33 Emp. v. Mohrulal, AIR 1936 All 193.

34 State of M.P. v. Ghiara, AIR 1957 SC 196 : 1957 CrLJ 322.

35 Patnaik v. Brinnand, AIR 1970 Cal 110.

36 Babban v. State of Bihar, 2007 CrLJ 529Pat .

37 Dinesh Kumar Sharma v. State, 2007 CrLJ NOC 194Raj .

38 Ahuja v. State, 2007 CrLJ 115Bom .

39 Suresh v. State, 2007 CrLJ NOC 678MP .

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.

41 S. Karan Singh v. S, Jatinder, 2007 CrLJ 2588 (J & K).

42 K.M. Mathew v. K. Abraham, 1998 CrLJ 327Ker .

43 Shakuntala v. State of MP., 2005 CrLJ NOC 59MP .

44 Ramesh v. State, 2005 CrLJ 1732Mad .

45 T. Venkateshwarlu v. State of A.P., 1999 CrLJ 39AP .

46 Bhora Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2008 SC 2666 : (2008) 4 SCC 103 : 2008 CrLJ 3496.

47 Suman v. State of U.P., 1999 CrLJ 4659All .

48 Malli Pal v. State of Haryana, 1997 CrLJ 43(P&H) .

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.

50 Dipankar v. State of Bihar, 2007 CrLJ 4360Pat .

51 Jaswant v. Gurdeep, 2007 CrLJ 4726CHH .

52 Dinesh v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 CrLJ NOC 194Raj .

53 Mangaldas v. State, AIR 1966 SC 128 : 1966 CrLJ 106.

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].

56 Lilade v. State of Gujarat, (1983) CrLJ 934 (para 9).

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].

59 Vijay v. State of U.P., (1988) CrLJ 1581 (para 7).

60 Radha Kishan v. Ellamma, (1984) CrLJ 573(Mad) (para 2).

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

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , 1973 (ACT NO. 2 OF 1974)


CHAPTER XIII

JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND TRIALS

S. 178

Place of inquiry or trial.

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.

4.   Section 178 is supplemental to s. 181. 62


3.   The applicability of s. 178 is to be determined with reference to the averments in the
complaint or charge-sheet, unless they are positively disproved. 63

2. Cl. (a) :'Uncertainty'. --


2.   The following facts from a Supreme Court case will illustrate what is meant by
uncertainty as to the place where an offence was committed [ s. 177].
The accused was the agent of a company having its head office at Nagpur. He was entrusted at
Nagpur with a car for sale. The accused sold the car at Bombay and received the sale proceeds
there. On returning to Nagpur, the accused failed to pay over the money to the company.
A charge-sheet was field against him at Nagpur, under s. 408,I.P.C., without stating it specifically
that the offence of breach of trust took place at Nagpuror at Bombay. There was no evidence to
show that prior to his leaving Bombay for Nagpur the accused had entertained or even been
animated with an intention to misappropriate the sale proceeds and there was nothing to show
that he had utilised the funds for his own use during the period of his stay at Bombay between the
13th and 16th January.
Held, it was uncertain whether the offence under s. 408 was committed at Nagpur or Bombay.
Hence, the Court at either Bombay or Nagpur had jurisdiction to try the offence. 64
5.   The question of uncertainty is to be determined by the Court before which it is
contended that another Court has jurisdiction to try the offence in question. 65
11

3. Cl. (c): 'Continuing offence'.--


Normally a particular act constitutes an offence when the act is committed. But there are certain act s which
constitute an offence and continue to constitute a fresh offence each day the act continues. 66 In such a case, the
offence may be tried at any of the Courts within whose jurisdiction the different act s constituting the continuing
offence were committed.
A continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and distinguishable from one which is
committed once for all. It is one of the offences which arise out of failure to comply with the Rule which visits
the person with penalty. So, the liability continues on every occasion that disobedience and non-compliance
occurs. 67
When the offence of cruelty and ill-treatment was a continuing committed not only at the place when the parents
in law resides but also continue at the place where the wife took shelter in her father's house by giving threats to
her, the Court of the place in which the wife resides with the parents shall also have the jurisdiction. 68
But an offence under s. 498AI.P.C. is not a continuing offence. No harassment in relation to the demand of
dowry was made within local limits of Kanpur Court, the Court at Kanpur would have no jurisdiction to
entertain the complaint unders. 498AI.P.C.69
The appellant was married with the Respondent No.2 and living in the matrimonial house at Jabalpur. The
appellant No.1`s father-in-law lodged a complaint with the police of Jabalpur alleging ill-treatment to the
Respondent No. 2, and demand of dowry from her by the appellant and the other family members. The
Respondent No. 2, also lodged and FIR at Datia in Madhya Pradesh so much so that she had been forced to live
with her parents at Datia. The Supreme Court has held that the offence is not a continuing one and s. 177Cr.P.C.
is attracted and the FIR could be lodged only at the place when the offence of ill-treatment on account of dowry
was committed at Jabalpur. The High Court committed illegality by treating the offence to be continuing one that
it continued even at the place at Datia when the Respondent No. 2 was forced to live and the mental cruelty and
harassment even continued at Datia. So, the Supreme Court setting aside the order of the High Court directed the
transfer of the criminal case pending before the C.J.M. Datia to the Court of C.J.M. Jabalpur.70
In a criminal proceedings under s. 498A, IPC for offences relating to cruelty by husband and his relatives, the
specific allegation by wife about ill-treatment and cruelty was made at Ranchi. She was taken to her parental
home at Gaya by her husband and threatened he for non-fulfillment of dowry. It was held by the Supreme Court
that in view of s s. 178 and 179, the offence was a continuing one, having been committed in more local areas
than one. Therefore clause (C) of s.178 is clearly attracted and the court at Gaya has jurisdiction to proceed with
the case. 71

4. Offence committed at more than one place.--


When the defamatory article in the newspaper was published at one place and it was circulated in another place,
the place when the newspaper was circulated shall have the jurisdiction as it has also the jurisdiction to entertain
the defamation case. 72
When the offence of forgery was committed at place 'D' and it was used at place 'C' when the accused was
interviewed, both the places 'D' and 'C' would have the jurisdiction but not the place 'D; where the accused was
initially appointed on the basis of the forged certificate. 73
When the infringement of copyright of the firm took place at Hrishikesh where the film and cassettes were
produced and at Moradabad film was exhibited in studios, both the Courts having the jurisdiction at Hrishikesh
and that of Moradabad have the jurisdiction. So, the complaint filed at Dehradoon Court within whose
jurisdiction Hrishikesh is situated had also the jurisdiction. 74
When the accused is prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act before the Special Court, the Special
Court at place Delhi where part of his known source of income is situated at Delhi, the Special Court at Delhi
has the jurisdiction as part of cause of action across in that place. 75
12

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

62 State of M.P. v. Ghiara, AIR 1957 SC 196 : 1957 CrLJ 322.

63 State of M.P. v. Ghiara, AIR 1957 SC 196 : 1957 CrLJ 322.

64 State of M.P. v. Ghiara, AIR 1957 SC 196 : 1957 CrLJ 322.

65 Brinnand v. Patnaik, (1971) 3 SCC 943 : 1972 SCC (Cr) 191.

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 .

69 Sarojini v. State of U.P., 2008 CrLJ 126All .

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.

72 K.M. Mathew v. K. Abraham, 1998 CrLJ 327Ker .

73 Mahi Pal v. State of Haryana, 1997 CrLJ 43 (P&H).

74 Krishna Rao v. State of U.P., 1997 CrLJ 1129All .

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.

80 Vipin v. State, 1998 CrLJ 2327All .


13

81 Apsana v. State, 2008 CrLJ (NOC) 246 (Del).

82 Sarojini v. State, 2008 CrLJ 1026All .


14
15

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

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , 1973 (ACT NO. 2 OF 1974)


CHAPTER XIII

JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND TRIALS

S. 179

Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues.


When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has
ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has
been done or such consequence has ensued.

1. Scope of s. 179.--
This section corresponds to old s. 179, with verbal changes, and omitting the illustrations.

2. S s. 179 and 181.--


Though there was a controversy as to whether s. 179 could be applied to cases specifically mentioned in s.
181(post), the better view is that the two provisions are cumulative, and not exclusive of each other; and the one
is not controlled by the other. 83

3. Offence constituted of an act and its consequence. --


3.   Section 179 applies to those offences which consist of an act and its consequence,
e.g., culpable homicide [ s. 299,I.P.C.].84 The consequence contemplated by the section is a
consequence which ensues from the act and completes the offence. It has no application where
the consequence is not an integral part of the offence. 85
6.   When a person is accused of the commission of any offence by reason of two
things,--by reason first of anything which has been done, and, secondly of any consequence
which has ensued, then jurisdiction is conferred on the Court within whose local jurisdiction the
act has been done or the consequence has ensued. But the offence must be charged by reason of
those two things, the act done and the consequence which ensued. 86 Section 179 has no
application where the accused could have been prosecuted for an offence even if the consequence
had not ensued. 87

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

4. Cheating (s. 420, I.P.C.). --


The offence is constituted of two acts: (a) dishonest inducement, followed by; (b) the person induced in
delivering some property to any person or making, altering or destroying any property, as a result of such
inducement. 93 Hence, where these two act s take place under different jurisdiction, the accused may be tried at
both place. Thus,

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

5. Cheating and misappropriation.--


Considering s. 178Cr.P.C., fraudulent representation being one of the ingredients of the offence of cheating, the
person accused of cheating could be prosecuted at the place where the said fraudulent representation was made.
As regards the offence of criminal misrepresentation, the Court within jurisdiction the property had been
entrusted or was to be accounted for could take cognizance. The appellant company having its place of business
at Calcutta filed a criminal complaint unders. 156(3)Cr.P.C. for investigation of several offences of cheating,
criminal mis-appreciation etc. committed by its agents in Calcutta and also in the States of U.P. did not commit
any illegality as the agents admitted that reconciliation took place at Calcutta. So, if the fraudulent representation
by the accused took place at Calcutta and a conspiracy was hatched them to commit the offences, the Magistrate
at Calcutta had the jurisdiction to direct the Police to hold investigation unders. 156(3)Cr.P.C. So, the High Court
at Allahabad erred in interfering with such order and transferring the case to the State of U.P. 3

6. Offence under section 364AI.P.C.--


The offence under Section 364AI.P.C. could be tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction any of the said
ingredients of the said offence had taken place. So, when the victims were abducted at place in the State of U.P.,
demand for ransom was made by phone call at the house of the victims at place 'N' in another State and the
victims were put to death at place 'U' in the State of U.P., the trial court at all the three places had the jurisdiction
17

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

9. Offence under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881.--


When no part of cause of act ion arose in the place of residence of the complainant, mere fact of residence of the
complainant at particular place cannot confer jurisdiction of that place when there is no agreement between the
parties that the amount is payable at the place of residence of the complainant. 9

10. Offences under Sections 498, 494 and 494A I.P.C.--


The accused is charged under Sections 498 9 494 A I.P.C. and Section 494A of the 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act . Allegations made against the accused clearly showed that sufficient portion of the cause of action took
place at Chennai. Therefore, the plea that no part of the cause of act ion arose at Chennai is liable to be rejected. 10

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.

84 Laxman v. Dayabhai, AIR 1948 Nag 80.

85 Emp. v. Kashi Ram, (1934) 56 All 1047(FB) .

86 Jivendas, in re., AIR 1930 Bom 490 : (1930) 55 Bom 59(FB) .

87 Emp. v. Kashi Ram, (1934) 56 All 1047(FB) .

88 K.C. Mathew v. Reena Paul, 1998 CrLJ 2300Ker .

89 Yamma Prosad v. State of MP., 1997 CrLJ 1352.

90 Ibrahim v. Mohammed Siraj, 1997 CrLJ 1352.

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.

1 State v. Chunilal, AIR 1965 Pat 103 (see, however, s. 183,post ].

2 Vishwanatha v. State, 2008 CrLJ 1093Del .

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.

6 Subramaniam v. Prabhakar, (1984) CrLJ 1329 (para 9) Bom.

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.

9 P.M. Philipose v. P.C. Chandy, AIR2010 (NOC) 303 (Ker).

10 Victor v. State, 2008 CrLJ 774Mad .


19
20

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

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , 1973 (ACT NO. 2 OF 1974)


CHAPTER XIII

JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND TRIALS

S. 180

Place of trial where act is offence by reason of relation to other offence.


When an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence or which would
be an offence if the doer were capable of committing an offence , the first mentioned offence may be
inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction either act was done.

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.

3. Manufacture and Marketing of illicit goods.--


When illicit (e.g. sub-standard) goods are manufactured at one place and marketed at another, the manufacturer
may be prosecuted and tried at both places (e.g., under the Fertiliser Control Order, 1957, read with Sections
13A of the Essential Commodities Act , 1955).12 This case comes under both s s. 179 and 180. 13
Where the manufacturer and seller are different persons they may be tried jointly [ s. 223(d),post ] in cases
where there is unity of purpose. 14

11 State v. Nathumal, AIR 1962 Bom 21 (para 6).

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

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , 1973 (ACT NO. 2 OF 1974)


CHAPTER XIII

JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND TRIALS

S. 181

Place of trial in case of certain offences.

1)   Any offence of being a thug, or murder committed by a thug, of dacoity, of


dacoity with murder, of belonging to a gang of dacoits, or of escaping from custody, may be
inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed
or the accused person is found.
1)   Any offence of kidnapping or abduction of a person may be inquired into or
tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the person was kidnapped or abducted or
was conveyed or concealed or detained.
1)   Any offence of theft, extortion or robbery may be inquired into or tried by a
Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property
which is the subject of the offence was possessed by any person committing it or by any
person who received or retained such property knowing or having reason to believe it to be
stolen property.
1)   Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be
inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed
or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or
was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person.
1)   Any offence which includes the possession of stolen property may be inquired
into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the
stolen property was possessed by any person who received or retained it knowing or having
reason to believe it to be stolen property.

1. Scope of s. 181. --
This section corresponds to old s. 181, with the changes indicated by italics, and the following drafting changes:

2i)   Old sub-sec. (4) is now sub-sec. (2);


2ii)   Old sub-sec. (2) is now sub-sec. (4);
2iii)   Old sub-sec. (3) has been divided into sub-sec. (3) and new sub-sec. (5).

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.].

3. Belonging to a gang of dacoits.--


This offence, under s. 400,I.P.C., may be tried at a number of places, since different provisions of this Chapter
would be attracted. Thus, if the headquarters of a gang of dacoits be located within West Bengal and members of
such gang commit some dacoitis at Dhanbad in Bihar and are arrested and brought before a Dhanbad Court, the
accused may be tried15 --

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--

3a)   Where the offence was committed; or


4b)   Where any part of the property involved was received or retained; or
2c)   Where any part of such property was required to be returned or accounted for by the
accused person.
1. Where the offences was committed.
1. In the case of criminal misappropriation [ s. 403,I.P.C.], the place where
the offence was committed16 is--
1. Where the original intention was to misappropriate,--the place
where the property was taken by the accused from the possession of the
lawful owner.
1. Where the original intention lawful, but the offence was
constituted by a subsequent change of intention,--the place where the
subsequently conversion took place. 17 Thus, if A borrows a book from his
friend B at Calcutta, but subsequently sells the book at Delhi and
appropriates the sells proceeds to his own benefit,--the offence was
committed at Delhi.
1.
1. In the case of criminal breach of trust, as defined in s. 405, the place of
commission of the offence is--
2. Where the property was dishonestly misappropriated; or
converted to the use of the accused, as just explained.
2. Where the accused dishonestly uses or disposes of the property
in violation of any law or contract prescribing the mode of discharge of the
trust.
2.
1.
1. Where any part of the property involved was received 18 or retained.
1. Where any part of the property involved was required to be returned or retained.
1. It is often difficult for the complainant to ascertain the place where the
dishonest conversion, use or disposal took place because these are matters within
the special knowledge of the accused. But the place where the property was
required to be returned or accounted for but the accused failed to discharge that
obligation, being a matter arising out of agreement, is known to both parties and
may often be a more convenient venue from the point of view of the complainant.
But since there was no express provision on this point in old s. 181(2), a serious
controversy arose whether the place stipulated for accounting or return of the
property could furnish jurisdiction. 19 In some cases, s. 179 was held applicable in
the absence of express provision in s. 181. 20
1. The Law Commission sought to cut the Gordian knot by recommending
that the place for accounting or return should be an alternative forum in cases of
criminal misappropriation or breach of trust. 21 The new Code has accordingly
added, these words at the and of s. 181(4).
1. The words 'required to do returned or accounted for, 22 in addition to the
generic expression 'was committed' in old sub-sec. (2), clarifies the position.
25

Thus, where B received goods of A to deliver, as a carrier, the goods at


Bangalore, but fails to deliver them, having committed criminal breach of trust, the
Bangalore Court would have jurisdiction to try the alleged offence of criminal
breach of trust. 23
1. In view of the express provision now made in s. 181(4), there is no scope
of invoking s. 179 in such cases.
1. It is, therefore, clear that the offence of criminal breach of trust or criminal
misappropriation may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction, the offence was committed or where any part of the incriminating
property was received or retained. 24
1. When the accused agreed to deliver the goods at place 'B', the offence of
criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried at place 'B'. 25
1. But when the agreement to supply goods is at the branch office of the
complainant, the Court where his head office is situated has no jurisdiction to try
the offence of criminal breach of trust. 26
1. In an offence of criminal breach of trust when the FIR discloses that the
accused was required to remit and account for the money to the company at its
head office, then the Court where the head office was situated was competent to
entertain the complaint and to direct the police to investigate the case. 27
1. When the accused promised to deliver the goods at Banglore but did not do
so but converted the same to his own use, the Court at Banglore shall have the
jurisdiction to try the offence. 28
1. When the articles of dowry were made to the accused at the place, 'D'
complaint of criminal breach of trust by the wife can be filed at place 'D' but not at
the place where the complainant wife subsequently shifted her residence. 29
1. The allegation of the wife is that his in-laws harassed her for demand of
dowry and non-fulfilment of dowry demand and returned the articles of dowry
with them, the wife could lodge the complaint at the place of her parents where
she was forced to reside upon being turned out by the in-laws because dowry
articles were given at the residence of her parents. 30
1. Cheating and criminal mis-appropriation against the agent can be tried at
the place when the fraudulent representation was made by the agent i.e., in
Calcutta. Agent also admitted that reconciliation was made in Calcutta. Even if
major part of misappropriation took place in the State of U.P., the Magistrate at
Calcutta is competent to entertain the complaint and direct the police to investigate
the case under s. 156(3)Cr.P.C.31
2.

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.

15 Lalchand v. State, AIR 1961 Pat 260(DB) .

16 Cf. Emp. v. Mohrulal, AIR 1936 All 193.

17 Cf. Emp. v. Mohrulal, AIR 1936 All 193; Gaukaran v. Saryu, AIR 1921 Pat 85; Santi v. Chandrakant, (1972) CrLJ 794(Pat) .
26

18 Cf. State of U.P. v. Santosh, (1975) CrLJ 734 (para 6) All.

19 Cases where the negative view was taken included. Jivandas, in re., AIR 1930 Bom 490FB ; Patnaik v. Brinnand, AIR 1970
Cal 110 116.

20 Rashid v. Emp., AIR 1926 All 466.

21 41st Rep., paras 11. 24.

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].

24 Aarjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 1986 Cr.LJ 2070 (P&H).

25 Dhiren Bhowmick v. State of West Bengal, 1978 CrLJ 637Cal .

26 Jai Prakash v. Dinesh, 1991 CrLJ 418Del .

27 Jahangir v. State, 1999 CrLJ 154Raj .

28 Mysore Manufacturers v. Roy Chowdhury, 1978 CrLJ 577Kant .

29 Harjeet Singh v. State, 1986 CrLJ 2070 (P&H).

30 Shiv Dayal v. Renu, 2007 CrLJ 2972 (P&H).

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

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , 1973 (ACT NO. 2 OF 1974)


CHAPTER XIII

JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND TRIALS

S. 182

Offences committed by letters, etc.

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

2. Sub-sec (1): Cheating. --


Section 182(1) deals with the offence of cheating when it is committed through the post or telegram or
telephone.
The reason why this special provision was needed has been explained in para. 15.30 of the 41st Rep. of the Law
Commission as follows:

"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

3. Sub-sec. (2): Bigamy.--


The jurisdiction to try the offence of bigamy has been widened by the amendment of sub-sec.(2) by Act 45 of
1978. In a case of bigamy, under s. 494 or 495I.P.C.,any of the following Courts have territorial jurisdiction to
inquire into or try the offender--

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

32 Inserted by Act No. 45 of 1978, s. 15 (w.e.f. 18-12-1978).

33 41st Rep., paras 15, 36-37.

34 41st Rep., paras 15, 36-37.

35 Kanumukkala v. State of A.P., AIR 1965 SC 333 : (1964) 7 SCC 410 : (1965) 1 Crimes 355.

36 Krishna v. Mahabir Agencies, (1984) CrLJ 1682 (paras 14-15) All.

37 Sukhaswarooplal v. State of M.P., (1987) CrLJ 921 (paras 5, 10) MP.

38 Amrit Kaur v. Indrajit Kaur, 1991 CrLJ 789Pat ; Mamgappa v. Kelabati, 1986 CrLJ 1719 : ILR (1986) Kant 211.

39 P. Nagalakshmi v. Premabati, 1997 CrLJ 808Mad .


30

40 S. Elangu v. S. Ravindran, 1998 CrLJ 3095Mad .

41 Saroj v. Ganesh, 2007 CrLJ NOC 101Bom .


31
32

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

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , 1973 (ACT NO. 2 OF 1974)


CHAPTER XIII

JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND TRIALS

S. 183

Offence committed on journey or voyage.


When an offence is committed whilst the person by or against whom, or the thing in respect of which, the
offence is committed is in the course of performing a journey or voyage, the offence may be inquired into
or tried by a Court through or into whose local jurisdiction that person or thing passed in the course of
that journey or voyage.

1. Scope of s. 183.--
It corresponds to old s. 183, with changes recommended by the Law Commission. 42

42 41st Rep., paras 15, 41.


33
34

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

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , 1973 (ACT NO. 2 OF 1974)


CHAPTER XIII

JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND TRIALS

S. 184

Place of trial for offences triable together.


Where--

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

43 41st Rep., paras 15, 45-47.

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.

45 Mahi Pal v. State of Haryana, 1997 CrLJ 43(P&H) .


36
37

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

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , 1973 (ACT NO. 2 OF 1974)


CHAPTER XIII

JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND TRIALS

S. 185

Power to order cases to be tried in different sessions divisions.


Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding provisions of this Chapter, the State Government
may direct that any cases or class of cases committed for trial in any district may be tried in any sessions
division :
Provided that such direction is not repugnant to any direction previously issued by the High Court or the
Supreme Court under the Constitution, or under this Code or any other law for the time being in force.

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

2. Remedies of person aggrieved. --


9.   A person aggrieved by an order under s. 185 may have it set aside by a petition
under Art. 226. 48
12.   But even without setting aside the order under s. 185, the party may resort to s. 407
(post) for transferring the case to the usual sessions division or some other division, for, the
scope of the provisions in s s. 185 and 407 is different and as the Proviso to s. 185 expressly
states, s. 185 does not control any of the powers vested in the High Court or the Supreme Court
as regards transfer of cases, by the Constitution, the Code or any other law. 49 An order of transfer
may be made under s. 407 for the convenience of the parties or the ends of justice. 50

46 Cf. Haridas v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 All 82; Cf. P.P. v. Reddy, (1976) CrLJ 1252(AP) .

47 Cf. P.P. v. Reddy, (1976) CrLJ 1252(AP) .

48 Cf. P.P. v. Reddy, (1976) CrLJ 1252(AP) .


38

49 Cf. P.P. v. Reddy, (1976) CrLJ 1252(AP) .

50 Cf. P.P. v. Reddy, (1976) CrLJ 1252(AP) .


39
40

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

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , 1973 (ACT NO. 2 OF 1974)


CHAPTER XIII

JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND TRIALS

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.

13.   It has two parts :


1. Cl. (a) applies where the two Courts with respect to which the conflict of
jurisdiction arises are subordinate to the same High Court.
1. Cl. (b) applies where such Courts are subordinate to different High Courts.

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.

3. '... First commenced'. --


In a complaint case, it is obvious that this expression will refer to that Court before which the complaint, earlier
in point of time, was filed.

4. Considerations relevant for deciding the question. --


A Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court 52 has taken the view that under Cl. (b) the sole test for determining
the question of jurisdiction is in which subordinate court the criminal proceedings had been first instituted, while
no such condition has been imposed upon the unfettered discretion of the High Court under Cl. (a). It is
submitted that his view does not appear to be correct. In Cl. (b), the words 'the proceedings were first
commenced' have been provided as the test for determining which of the several High Courts involved shall
have the jurisdiction to decide the question of conflict as between the subordinate Courts as has arisen under s.
185. The section does not impose any conditions to fetter the discretion of the High Court under either Cl. (a) or
(b).

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.

52 Supriyo v. Sunil, AIR 1970 Cal 80 83.

53 Cf. Purushottamdas v. State of W.B., AIR 1961 SC 1589 (para 11) : (1962) 2 SCR 101 : (1961) 2 Crimes 728.

54 Supriyo v. Sunil, AIR 1970 Cal 80 83.

55 Supriyo v. Sunil, AIR 1970 Cal 80 83.

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.

58 Cf. Gurdit v. Emp., AIR 1917 Lah 237 240.

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.

63 Babulal v. Emp., AIR 1938 PC 130 133.

64 Sreeramulu v. Rangswamy, (1978) CrLJ 1475(AP) .


42
43

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

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , 1973 (ACT NO. 2 OF 1974)


CHAPTER XIII

JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND TRIALS

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

65 Sagarmal, AIR 1940 Bom 397.


44
45

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

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , 1973 (ACT NO. 2 OF 1974)


CHAPTER XIII

JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND TRIALS

S. 188

Offence committed outside India.


When an offence is committed outside India--

4a)   by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or


4b)   by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India,
he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at
which he may be found :
Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence
shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

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

2. Cl. (a):'Citizen of India'.--


The rule enunciated in this clause is based on the principle that qua citizens the jurisdiction of courts is not lost
by reason of the venue of the offence. 69 It means that if at the commission of the offence, the person committing
it is a citizen of India, then even though the offence is committed outside India, he is subject to the jurisdiction
of the courts in India. The clause has no application if, at the time of commission of the offence, he was not a
citizen of India. 70 Thus, a person accused of an offence committed in a district which after the partition of India
because Pakistan, could not be tried of the offence by a criminal court in India, after his migration to India,
thereby acquiring Indian citizenship. 71
Thus, from a perusal of the provisions of Section 4 of s. 188Cr.P.C., it is clear that even if the offence is
committed by a citizen of India outside the country, the same is subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts in India. 72
46

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

3. Proviso to s. 188 : Previous Sanction of the Central Government.--


The expression 'to enquire into and try' used in the proviso to s. 188Cr.P.C. indicates that in investigation stage
no sanction of the Central Government is necessary.75
So, the previous sanction of the Central Government is not necessary to the taking of cognizance of the offence
committed outside India. Sanction can be obtained before the commencement of the trial. 76
So, the word 'enquiry' in the proviso to s. 188Cr.P.C. is confined to the proceedings before the Magistrate prior
to the trial, but cannot be extended to investigate by the police. So, the bar contemplated by the proviso tos.
188Cr.P.C. will operate in enquiry before the Magistrate after the police submitted charge sheet against the
accused.77

4. Sanction when not necessary.--


When the conspiracy was initially hatched in India and even accepting the accused appellant's case that he was
at Dubai and part of conspiracy and overt act s in furtherance thereof had taken place at Dubai, the offence
cannot be said to be wholly committed outside India when part of conspiracy was hatched in India. So, the
conspiracy being a distinct offence having been committed inside India even if part of conspiracy and some
overt acts were committed at Dubai, proviso to s. 188Cr.P.C. is not attracted and previous sanction of the Central
Government for any enquiry or trial in India is not necessary.78

66 With the omission of the 2nd Proviso, as recommended by the Law Commission, 41st Rep., (para 15.66).

67 This section is thus in accord with s. 4, IPC .

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.

75 Remia v. Sub-Inspector of Police, 1993 CrLJ 1098Ker .

76 Ajay Agarwal v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1637 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 961 : 1993 CrLJ 2516.

77 Vijaya v. Devi, 2007 CrLJ 636AP .

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

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , 1973 (ACT NO. 2 OF 1974)


CHAPTER XIII

JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND TRIALS

S. 189

Receipt of evidence relating to offences committed outside India.


When any offence alleged to have been committed in a territory outside India is being inquired into or
tried under the provisions of Section 188, the Central Government may, if it thinks fit, direct that copies
of depositions made or exhibits produced before a judicial officer in or for that territory or before a
diplomatic or consular representative of India in or for that territory shall be received as evidence by the
Court holding such inquiry or trial in any case in which such Court might issue a commission for taking
evidence as to the matters to which such depositions or exhibits relate.

1. Scope of s. 189.--
This provision corresponds to old s. 189 and is consequential upon s. 188.