Related offenses, even if committed at different places, can be inquired into or tried at either place under Section 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

B. P. BERI, J.

( 1 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, 1ms recommended the quashing of the order of the Magistrate, Bhawani-mandi whereby he has held that the inquiry of offences under Sections 360 and 376 I. P. C. , although committed at bhawani-mandi and Indore respectively, could be conducted by him at bhawanimandi.

( 2 ) THE facts which it is necessary to recall for the disposal of this reference, briefly stated, are these. Rampratap has been accused of kidnapping a minor girl Geeta from Bhawanimandi (Rajasthan) on or about the 13th March, 1967. He took her to indore and there on or about the 16th March, 1967, committed rape upon her. On behalf of the accused, a question was raised that the offences under Section 376 I. P. C. according to the prosecution having taken place at Indore, the learned Magistrate, Bhawanimandi, had no jurisdiction to inquire into it. This objection was rejected by him. He held that Section 177 read with Section 180 Cr. P. C. and more particularly its illustration (c) authorised him to inquire into the case at bhawanimandi. The accused came in revision before the Additional Sessions Judge and he has made the recommendation as indicated earlier.

( 3 ) MR. K. N. Tikku, learned counsel for the accused, supports the reference while the learned Deputy Government Advocate opposes it.

( 4 ) MR. Tikku argued that the offence of kidnapping under Section 366 is independent of the offence under Section 376 I. P. C. and on the plain language of section 177 Cr. P. G. the case of rape cannot be inquired into by the Magistrate bhawanimandi as he has no jurisdiction to inquire into an offence which is alleged to have taken place at Indore. In support of this contention, he relied on Emperor v. Mohanlal Aditram, AIR 1928 Bom 475 (2 ).

( 5 ) THE learned Deputy Government Advo-cate submitted that Section 180 and particularly illustration (c) supports the inquiry or ,trial of cases where the facts are related to one another as in the instant case. In support of his contention he relied upon Purushottamdas v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1961 SC 1589, The state of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao, AIR 1963 SG 1850, moujali v. Emperor, AIR 1941 Sind 121 and Gul Mohammad v. Crown, AIR 1951 ajmer 68.

( 6 ) SECTION 177 Cr. P. C. reads as follows:--

"ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed. "

This section is the first section of Chapter XV entitled as of the Jurisdiction of the criminal Courts in Inquiries and Trials and as the language shows and more particularly the word ordinarily, the section seems to have been moulded imparting to it a certain amount of flexibility. It came for interpretation before the supreme Court in AIR 1961 SC 1589 (supra ). To be exact, let me quote the language of their Lordships:

"it is further significant to notice the difference in the language of section 177 and Section 233. Section 177 simply says that ordinarily every offence would be tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed. It does not say that it would be tried by such Court except in the cases mentioned in Sections 179 to 185 and 188 or in cases specially provided by any other provision of law. It leaves the place of trial open: Its provisions are not peremptory. There is no reason why the provisions of Sections 233 to 239 may not also provide exceptions to Section 177, if they do permit the trial of a particular offence along with others in one Court. On the other hand, section 233, dealing with the trial of offences, reads: "for every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately, except in the cases mentioned in Sections 234, 235, 236 and 239. the language is very peremptory. There is a clear direction that there should be a separate charge for ev