place where decption occurred and inducement made would have jursidction .
Chapter XIII of the Code deals with jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquries and trials. Section 177 incorporates the ordinary/general rule of jurisdiction, as stated above, while the Sections following it, viz., 178 to 182 embody the exceptions. The general principle of law is that all crime is local and the jurisdiction to try a person for an offence depends upon the crime having been committed within the area of such jurisdiction. Section 182 states that any offence which includes cheating may, if the deception is practiced by means of letter of 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.
11. In 1982 CLJ 1492 Bhola Nath Arora vs. State the territorial jurisdiction of the Court to try the offence under Section 420 of the IPC had been questioned; the ratio of the said judgment states that the place where deception has been practiced and the inducement made would have the jurisdiction to try the offence.
12. In AIR 1957 SC 857 Mubarak Ali Ahmed vs. The State of Bombay, Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the question of jurisdiction of a criminal Court where the complainant was doing business from Goa and appellant at that time was in Karachi; the transactions between the two parties having been held through telephone, telegram and letters and at no time the appellant having been in Goa during the entire period of commission of the offence and he being only at Karachi, Pakistan; the Hon'ble Apex Court after examining the ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC had held that although the mis-representation and the deception was organized by the appellant while he was in Pakistan yet the consequences of the deception i.e. delivery of the Crl. M.C.No.1782/2009 Page 7 of 12 property had taken place in Bombay and as such the Courts in India would not be precluded from trying the said offence.
Print Page
Chapter XIII of the Code deals with jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquries and trials. Section 177 incorporates the ordinary/general rule of jurisdiction, as stated above, while the Sections following it, viz., 178 to 182 embody the exceptions. The general principle of law is that all crime is local and the jurisdiction to try a person for an offence depends upon the crime having been committed within the area of such jurisdiction. Section 182 states that any offence which includes cheating may, if the deception is practiced by means of letter of 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.
11. In 1982 CLJ 1492 Bhola Nath Arora vs. State the territorial jurisdiction of the Court to try the offence under Section 420 of the IPC had been questioned; the ratio of the said judgment states that the place where deception has been practiced and the inducement made would have the jurisdiction to try the offence.
12. In AIR 1957 SC 857 Mubarak Ali Ahmed vs. The State of Bombay, Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the question of jurisdiction of a criminal Court where the complainant was doing business from Goa and appellant at that time was in Karachi; the transactions between the two parties having been held through telephone, telegram and letters and at no time the appellant having been in Goa during the entire period of commission of the offence and he being only at Karachi, Pakistan; the Hon'ble Apex Court after examining the ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC had held that although the mis-representation and the deception was organized by the appellant while he was in Pakistan yet the consequences of the deception i.e. delivery of the Crl. M.C.No.1782/2009 Page 7 of 12 property had taken place in Bombay and as such the Courts in India would not be precluded from trying the said offence.
No comments:
Post a Comment