L. N. Mukherjee vs The State Of Madras

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: supreme-court

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 1960

Decision Date: 19 April 1961

Coram: Raghubar Dayal

L. N. Mukherjee versus the State of Madras was decided by the Supreme Court of India on the nineteenth day of April, 1961. The judgment was authored by Justice Raghubar Dayal, who also sat on the bench together with Justice K. Subbarao. The case is reported as 1961 AIR 1601 and 1962 SCR (2) 116, and it also appears in the citation R 1963 SC1620 (23). The matters under consideration involved the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898, specifically sections 177 and 239, together with sections 120‑B, 420 and 463 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860. The appellant, L. N. Mukherjee, had been committed to the Court of Session at Madras for trial on charges of criminal conspiracy to cheat under section 120‑B read with section 420, and for the offence of forgery committed in furtherance of that conspiracy. The alleged conspiracy was said to have been formed in Calcutta, whereas the subsequent offences arising from that conspiracy were claimed to have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras Court. The appellant argued that the Madras Court lacked jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy because the conspiracy itself had been perpetrated outside its territorial limits. The High Court of Madras rejected this contention and dismissed the petition to quash the commitment. The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether a Court of Session that possessed jurisdiction over the offences committed in pursuance of a conspiracy could also exercise jurisdiction over the conspiracy offence itself, even when the latter occurred outside its territorial jurisdiction.

Justice Dayal delivered the judgment on behalf of the Court, noting that the appeal was filed by special leave against the order dated fourteen April, 1960, of the Madras High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 246 of 1960, which had dismissed the appellant’s application for quashing the commitment. Counsel for the appellant and counsel for the State of Madras presented their arguments, and the Court examined the legal principle articulated in the earlier decision of Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal, reported in [1962] 2 SCR 101. In that precedent, the Court had held that when a court has jurisdiction to try offences committed in pursuance of a conspiracy, it likewise has jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy itself, notwithstanding that the conspiracy may have been formed outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction. The reasoning was based on the observation that the provisions of section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not overridden by the territorial limitation in section 177, and therefore no absolute prohibition exists against trying the conspiracy offence in a court other than the one within whose territory the conspiracy was formed. Applying the same line of reasoning, the Supreme Court concluded that the Madras Court was competent to try the conspiracy charge. Consequently, the order of the High Court was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.

In this decision, the Court referred to the earlier authority reported in [1962] 2 S.C.R. 101. It observed that a Court which possesses jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy also has authority to try the offences that are carried out in furtherance of that conspiracy, even when those subsequent offences occur outside the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. The Court explained that this position follows because the provisions of section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code are not subject to the limitations imposed by section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 177 does not establish an absolute bar that prevents a Court from trying an offence when the offence was committed in a different jurisdiction. Applying the same line of reasoning, the Court held that a Court which is authorised to try the offences committed in pursuance of a conspiracy is likewise authorised to try the offence of piracy, even if the act of piracy was performed outside the Court’s own territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court concluded that the order which was appealed against was correct. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and entered a final order of dismissal.