# Pur11slintlttmdaJ l>almitt v. Slttle of W esl Rengal Ragltubar D•y•I ] . April i9

- **Citation:** [1962] 2 S.C.R. 116
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1960-04-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 1960
- **Bench:** K. SuB!lA RA.o, ltao1n:llAR DAYAL
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/pur11slintlttmdaj-l-almitt-v-slttle-of-w-esl-rengal-ragltubar-d-y-i-april-i9-2126
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Trial- Jurisdiction-Court having jurisdictio>t to
tr1: offences cammitted in pursua11ce of conspiracy, •f can try the
oJJence of criminal conspiracy-Code of Cmnii:al Proctdure, 1898
(V of 1898), ss. 177, 239-lndian Penal Code, 1860 (Act X LV of
1860). ss. 120-B, 420, 463.
The appellant was committed to the Court of Session at
~iadras for trial under s. 120-B read with s. 420 of the Indian
Penal Code and for committing the offence o! forgery in pursuance of that conspiracy. The Criminal conspiracy was alleged
to have been cvmmitted at Calcutta, while the other offences in
' ' ..
I
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
117
pursuance thereof were committed at Madras. It was urged on
behalf of the appellant that the ;iiadras Court had no jurisdiction to try the offence of crirninal conspiracy.
H cld, that the court having the jurisdiction to try the
offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy, has also th(!
jurisdiction to try the offence of crin1inal conspiracy, even though
it \Vas committed outside its territorial jurisdiction.
Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal,
[IC,62]
2 S.C.R. ror, applied.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 119 of 1960.
Appeal by speoia.I leave from the ju<lgment and
order dated April 14, 1960, of the i\faclrns High
Court in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 246 of 1960.
D. N. J[ ukherjee, for the appellant.
M. S. K. Sastri and T. 111. Sen, for respondent.
1961. April 19. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
196r
L. lV. 111ukherje6
V,
State of 1'+1adras
RAGRUBAR DAYAL, J.-This appeal, by special
llaghubar
leave, is against the order of the Madras High Court
Dayal J.
dismissing the application for quashing the commitment of the case against the appellant, to the Court of
Session, for trial of offences of criminal conspiracy to
cheat under s. 120-B read with s. 420, Indian Penal
Code, and for the offence of forgery committed in pursuance of that conspiracy. The criminal conspiracy is
alleged to have been committed at Calcutta. The
other offences in pursuance of the conspirncy are
alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction
of the Court of Session at Madras. The quashing of
the commitment was sought on the ground that thP
Courts at Madras had no jurisdiction to try the offence
of conspiracy. The High Court did not accept the
contention and dismissNI f,he application.
The sole question for cunsideration in this appeal is
whether the offence of conspiracy alleged to have been
committed at Calcutta can be tried by the Court of
Session at Madras.
We have held t,his day, in Purushottamdas Dalmia
v. The State of West Bengal(') that the Court ha,•ing
(1) [1962] 2 S,C,R. IOI.
L. N. Muklt1rjr•
••
St till of M odrtis
Raghuba"
Doyol j.
April ao.
118
f
f
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy
can also try offences committed in pursuance of that
conspiracy even if those offences were committed out •
side the jurisdiction of th st Court, ss the provisions of
s. 239, Criminal Procedure Code, sre not controlled by
the provisions of s. 177, Criminal Procedure Code, which
do not crestP a.n absolute prohibition against the trial
of offences by s Court other than the one within whose
jurisdiction the offence is committed. On s parity of
reasoning, the Court having jurisdiction to try the
offences committ~d in pursuance of the conspiracy,
ca.n try the offence of conspiracy even if it we.a committed outside its jurisdiction. We therefore hold
that the ordn under appeal is correct snd, accordingly, dismiss this sppesl.
Appeal dismissed.
JAGANNATH AND OTHERS
v.
UNION OF INDIA
(P. n. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR,
K. N. WANOJIOO, ICC. DAS GUP'l'A, snd
N. RAJAOOPALA AYYANGAR JJ.)
Excise Duty-Tobacco-Diffrrenl rates for 111llole leaf and
broken leaf-If discriminatory-Central Excises and Salt Act,
1944 (/ of z944), First Schedule Entry 4(I) Items 5 and 6-COll·
stitution of India, Art. 14.
Item 5 of entry 4(1) of the First Schedule to the Central Excise

## Text

Pur11slintlttmdaJ
l>almitt
v.
Slttle of
W esl Rengal
Ragltubar
D•y•I ] .
April i9.
116
SUPRE..'1E COURT REPORTS
[1962]
addressed to the appellant's firm is not proved to have
returned to the dead-letter office or to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. If it was delivered by
the postman at the Shop Xo. 16, ordinary courteRy
requires that that shop would have Rent over the
letter to thl' neighbouring Shop Xo. 19. The appell1int's conduce in not ta.king any action to find out
w'ia.t was the result of his rrprcsentation to the Chief
Controller of Imports and Exports is consistent with
the view that he did receive the reply of the Chief
Controller of Imports and Exports.
In the l'ircumstance8, an expression of opinion t}rn.t. t lie let tor would
have reached the appt•llant cirnnot. b,. said to amount
to a misdirection.
Tho learner! Judge is perfectly justified to ask the
jury to take into consideration the probabilities of a.
case, whore no definite evidence, in connection with
an incidental matter, exists.
We do not consider that the contentions raised do
a.mount to misdirections.
In view of the above, we see no force in this appoal
a.nd accordingly dismiss it.
Appr.al dismi.ised.
L. N. MUKHERJEE
t'.
THE STATE OF MADRAS
(K. SuB!lA RA.o and ltao1n:llAR DAYAL, JJ.)
Criminal Trial- Jurisdiction-Court having jurisdictio>t to
tr1: offences cammitted in pursua11ce of conspiracy, •f can try the
oJJence of criminal conspiracy-Code of Cmnii:al Proctdure, 1898
(V of 1898), ss. 177, 239-lndian Penal Code, 1860 (Act X LV of
1860). ss. 120-B, 420, 463.
The appellant was committed to the Court of Session at
~iadras for trial under s. 120-B read with s. 420 of the Indian
Penal Code and for committing the offence o! forgery in pursuance of that conspiracy. The Criminal conspiracy was alleged
to have been cvmmitted at Calcutta, while the other offences in
' ' ..
I
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
117
pursuance thereof were committed at Madras. It was urged on
behalf of the appellant that the ;iiadras Court had no jurisdiction to try the offence of crirninal conspiracy.
H cld, that the court having the jurisdiction to try the
offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy, has also th(!
jurisdiction to try the offence of crin1inal conspiracy, even though
it \Vas committed outside its territorial jurisdiction.
Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal,
[IC,62]
2 S.C.R. ror, applied.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 119 of 1960.
Appeal by speoia.I leave from the ju<lgment and
order dated April 14, 1960, of the i\faclrns High
Court in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 246 of 1960.
D. N. J[ ukherjee, for the appellant.
M. S. K. Sastri and T. 111. Sen, for respondent.
1961. April 19. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
196r
L. lV. 111ukherje6
V,
State of 1'+1adras
RAGRUBAR DAYAL, J.-This appeal, by special
llaghubar
leave, is against the order of the Madras High Court
Dayal J.
dismissing the application for quashing the commitment of the case against the appellant, to the Court of
Session, for trial of offences of criminal conspiracy to
cheat under s. 120-B read with s. 420, Indian Penal
Code, and for the offence of forgery committed in pursuance of that conspiracy. The criminal conspiracy is
alleged to have been committed at Calcutta. The
other offences in pursuance of the conspirncy are
alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction
of the Court of Session at Madras. The quashing of
the commitment was sought on the ground that thP
Courts at Madras had no jurisdiction to try the offence
of conspiracy. The High Court did not accept the
contention and dismissNI f,he application.
The sole question for cunsideration in this appeal is
whether the offence of conspiracy alleged to have been
committed at Calcutta can be tried by the Court of
Session at Madras.
We have held t,his day, in Purushottamdas Dalmia
v. The State of West Bengal(') that the Court ha,•ing
(1) [1962] 2 S,C,R. IOI.
L. N. Muklt1rjr•
••
St till of M odrtis
Raghuba"
Doyol j.
April ao.
118
f
f
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy
can also try offences committed in pursuance of that
conspiracy even if those offences were committed out •
side the jurisdiction of th st Court, ss the provisions of
s. 239, Criminal Procedure Code, sre not controlled by
the provisions of s. 177, Criminal Procedure Code, which
do not crestP a.n absolute prohibition against the trial
of offences by s Court other than the one within whose
jurisdiction the offence is committed. On s parity of
reasoning, the Court having jurisdiction to try the
offences committ~d in pursuance of the conspiracy,
ca.n try the offence of conspiracy even if it we.a committed outside its jurisdiction. We therefore hold
that the ordn under appeal is correct snd, accordingly, dismiss this sppesl.
Appeal dismissed.
JAGANNATH AND OTHERS
v.
UNION OF INDIA
(P. n. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR,
K. N. WANOJIOO, ICC. DAS GUP'l'A, snd
N. RAJAOOPALA AYYANGAR JJ.)
Excise Duty-Tobacco-Diffrrenl rates for 111llole leaf and
broken leaf-If discriminatory-Central Excises and Salt Act,
1944 (/ of z944), First Schedule Entry 4(I) Items 5 and 6-COll·
stitution of India, Art. 14.
Item 5 of entry 4(1) of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, itnposes an excise duty of I{s. I-Io nP. per
kilogram on tobacco other than flue cured and not actually used
for the manufacture of cigarettes, smoking mixtures for pipes
and cigarettrs or biris in the whole leaf form. Item 6 imposes
a duty of Rs. 2-20 nP. per kilogram on tobacco in the broken
leaf form. The petitioners who dealt in tobacco in the broken
leaf form contended that their tobacco could not be distinguished on any rational basis from the whole leaf form in Item 5 and
the imposition of a double tariff on their !obacco was invalid
as it was based on unconstitutional discrimination, the tariff
being on the basis of use to which the tobacco was put.
r •