SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(Kar) 85

Karnataka High Court
Judges : M.Nagappa,S.R.Range Gowda
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Appellant
Versus
M.BALAKRISHNA - Respondent
Criminal Referred Case 1 Of 1979
Decided On : 04/18/1980
Advocates Appeared :
A.M.Farooq

Headnote:

JURISDICTION - CRIMINAL LAW - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - SECTION 186 - Section 366, Section 376 - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Court of Session to try the offence of kidnapping under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code when the offences were committed within the territorial jurisdiction of different Sessions Divisions. The court referred to the decision in State v. Tavara Naika and emphasized the need to consider the ingredients of Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code to determine the jurisdiction for trying the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also discussed the provisions of Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Purshottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal to establish the desirability of trying offences of criminal conspiracy and overt acts committed in pursuance of conspiracy together. The court concluded that the Court of Session at Chickmagalur had jurisdiction to try the offences under Section 366 and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, even though the offence under Section 376 was committed outside its jurisdiction.

Fact of the Case:

The accused was committed for trial before the Court of Session at Chickmagalur for offences under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the accused kidnapped a minor girl from one jurisdiction and committed rape in another jurisdiction. The Sessions Judge referred the matter to the High Court under Section 186 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to determine the jurisdiction for trying the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Court of Session at Chickmagalur had jurisdiction to try the offences under Section 366 and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, even though the offence under Section 376 was committed outside its jurisdiction.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Court of Session at Chickmagalur had jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code when the offence of kidnapping under Section 366 was committed within its jurisdiction and the offence of rape was committed outside its jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of continuity of action and the desirability of trying related offences together to determine the jurisdiction for trying the offences under Section 366 and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also emphasized the need to consider the ingredients of Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code to establish the connection between the offences and the same transaction.

Final Decision: The court directed the Sessions Judge to proceed with the case and dispose of the same according to law, emphasizing that the Court of Session at Chickmagalur had jurisdiction to try the offences under Section 366 and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, even though the offence under Section 376 was committed outside its jurisdiction.

NAGAPPA, J.

( 1 ) THE Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur, made a reference under Section 186 of the Code of criminal procedure, 1973, in Sessions Case No. 16 of 1978, on the file of his Court, to this court. In the said reference he has expressed a doubt whether the Court of Session at chickmagalur has jurisdiction to try the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian penal Code, which is said to have been committed by the accused not within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court, but committed it within the territorial jurisdiction of the court of session at Shimoga. To resolve the said doubt, he made the above reference to this Court, which came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 5-2-1979, who after adverting to the decision of a Bench of this Court in State v. Tavara Naika (AIR 1959 Mys. 193 : (1959 Cri lj 1004)) arrived at the conclusion that the said decision requires reconsideration in view of the fact that the ingredients of Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code have to be taken into consideration before deciding which Court would have jurisdiction to try an offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code where the offence of Kidnapping punishable under section 363 of the. P. C. takes place within the jurisdiction of one Sessions Division and the offence of rape seduction etc. to achieve which object the offence of kidnapping punishable under section 363 of the. P. C. takes place within the jurisdiction of another Sessions Division. It is in this view of the matter regarding the position in law, the learned single Judge thought it fit and proper to refer the matter to a Division Bench and that is how the said reference is before us.

( 2 ) FEW facts for proper appreciation and decision of the points involved in the case are these. The judicial Magistrate First Class; Chickmagalur, committed the accused in C. C. No. 954 of 1978 under Section 209 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to take his trial before the Court of session at Chickmagalur for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of the. P. C. as the offence under section 376 of the. P. C. is triable exclusively by the Court of Session.

( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution is that one Jamila (C. W. 2), aged about 13 years - a minor girl was under the care and protection of her mother Salumamma (C. W. 1) and was residing at New colony, Mudigere hand-post. On 2-1-1978 at about 10 p. m. the accused kidnapped Jamila from out of the lawful guardianship of her mother with intent to compel her to marry him. After the said Jamila was kidnapped by the accused from the lawful guardianship of her mother, it is the case of the prosecution, that the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with said Jamila on the night of 3-1-1978 in Room No. 21 of Sudha Lodge in Shimoga Town. Thus, according to the prosecution the offence of kidnapping which is punishable under section 366 of the. P. C. has been committed at Mudigere within the jurisdiction of the Court of Session at Chickmagalur and the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 of the. P. C. has been committed at a place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session at Shimoga.

( 4 ) THE learned Sessions Judge heard arguments with regard to the legality of the committal order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chickmagalur, in respect of the offence under section 376 of the. P. C. , as the said offence was not committed within the jurisdiction of his court. The learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned Counsel appearing for the accused after adverting to the ratio laid down by this Court in the above referred case appears to have submitted, that a reference may be made under section 186 of the Cr. P. C. to this Court for a decision of the place where the trial for the offence under section 376 of the. P. C. , has to take place. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the arguments of both the learned counsel and thereafter, as stated above, has referred the






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top