Site icon Legal Vidhiya

JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND TRIALS

Admin
Advertisements
Spread the love

This article is written by Kratika Singhal of 3rd Year of Government Law College Kota, Rajasthan, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT:

This article examines the importance of jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. It is an attempt to determine the answer of the question that arises in the minds of the investigative authorities that what will be the jurisdiction to determine the offence. This is a crucial task for the authorities to take charge of the criminals.

KEYWORDS: Jurisdiction, cognizance, contention, non-bailable, warrant, humiliated, summon, voyage, abduction, allegations.

INTRODUCTION

When an offence is committed, the first question arises in the mind of the investigating authorities is where will this offence be inquired? Or what will be the local jurisdiction of the Court under which the offence is committed? And what if the offence is committed in some foreign country. Jurisdiction means power or legal authority. the word “jurisdiction” is derived from Latin terms “Juris” meaning “law” and dicer or dicto meaning “to speak”. So, jurisdiction hereby means “I speak by law”.

Some Important Definitions

Inquiry: As per to Section 2(g) it is every request other than a trial, investigated by a Magistrate

or Court which hereby means, every inquiry which do not come under the definition of trial, which is looked into by the court of a Magistrate or by any other authorized Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure. This includes all those proceedings before framing of charges. It can be conducted by a Magistrate or before a Court. It results only in discharge or commitment of trial. Trial begins where inquiry ends. The object of inquiry is to identify whether the allegations are fair or not.

Types of inquiry

There are six kinds of inquiry under the Cr.P.C, 1973 which are as follows:

This is the inquiry proceeded in a matter raging to public concern which was done by a Judge, appointed by the government. 

A non-judicial inquiry is also known as an administrative inquiry which means that any inquiry which is not for the purpose of the enforcement of the law. 

A preliminary inquiry is an inquiry prior to the trial and which is done for the purpose of indicating the criminal nature of the offence or for the reason that whether the trials should start or not. 

Section 148 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 deals with local inquiry defining that the magistrate may depute any subordinate magistrate for making a local inquiry. The magistrate may also direct instructions for the inquiry and for the guidance of the subordinate magistrate. 

Inquiry into offence can never end up in conviction or acquittal. The inquiry into offence just bases up the case for the trial. Inquiry into offence is related to general information about the offence committed.

It includes such inquiry which is based on matters other than the offence, this includes general inquiries made or any other inquiry which excludes the particular offence. 

Local Jurisdiction: Section 2(j) defines local jurisdiction as the local area within which a court or Magistrate can exercise all or any of its or his power under Criminal Procedure Code.

Trial: The trial starts when the inquiry stage comes to an end. It is the most crucial and the third segment of a judicial proceeding. It is the process by which guilt or innocence of an allegation on a person is ascertained.

TYPES OF TRIAL IN CRIMINAL CASES

The trial of the accused in the Indian Criminal Law is divided through the punishments of the said committed offense. The Trial of the accused for the offense committed by him is divided into four types:

Sessions Trial

If the committed offense is punishable with more than seven years of imprisonment or imprisonment for life or Death, the trial is to be conducted in a Sessions court after being committed or forwarded to the court by a magistrate.

Warrant Trial

Warrant case includes offence punishable with the death penalty, life imprisonment and imprisonment exceeding two years. A trial in a warrant case begins either by filing an FIR in a Police Station or by filing it before a Magistrate.

Summons Trial

If the offense committed is punishable with less than two years of imprisonment, it is taken as a summons case. The procedure to deal with such matters is provided in section 251 to 259 of Cr.P.C, 1973 which is not as serious/formal as other trials.

Summary Trial

Those trials in which cases are disposed of speedily with a simple procedure to follow and recording of such trials are done summarily. In this trial only, small cases are taken in hand and complicated cases are reserved for summon and warrant trials.

Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts in Inquiries and Trial

It comes under Chapter XIII from Section 177 to 189 and this chapter does not lie with chapter
VIII, IX, X.

[1]Sec 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973– Ordinary Place of inquiry and trial- It states that ordinarily, inquiry of every offence shall be done by the court within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed. The word ‘ordinary’ means in normal manner and it is used here to determine that this provision is not imperative, and place of trial and inquiry can be changed.

Nasiruddin Khan V. State of Bihar (1973[2]): In this case, a member of Bihar Military Police (Nasiruddin) left without informing officer and in this case, a member of Bihar Military Police (Nasiruddin) left without intimating the officer and went home in Patna. He takes defence that headquarter of where he was working was in Kashmir and so no case can be filed in Patna, it does not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the trial at Patna was not invalid. Therefore, his defence was treated as rejected and said that there is no provision that case cannot be filed in Patna, it can be filed in Patna.

[3]Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973- Place of Inquiry or Trial:

A. when place of offence committed is uncertain, or

B. where an offence is committed partly at one place and partly at another, or

C. where an offence is a continuous one, which continued to be committed in more than one area, or

D. where an act which consists of several different acts done in different areas, then that offence may be inquired and tried by any court having jurisdiction over any such areas.

Illustration
A terrorist attack was planned in Delhi, money contracted was given in Noida, guns and grenades were supplied in Pune and the offence was committed in Hyderabad. Now in this situation, it is very difficult to find out the original place of offence as it involves various offences. Here, with the application of section 178 of Criminal Procedure Code,1973, the accused may be inquired into or tried by any court within whose local jurisdiction any offence was committed.

Mangal Das RR V. State of Maharashtra (1966):[4]

Supreme Court held that, if of any case proceeding were taken in wrong court or place and decision was given, then the case will not get dismissed only on the basis that the court was not having the jurisdiction. It is only being dismissed if both the parties were not having knowledge and filed a case in wrong court.

[5]Section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973: Offence Triable Where Act Is Done or Consequences:

It emphasises that when an act is an offence by any reason committed at a place but its consequences occurred at other place, then the offence may be inquired into or tried by any court within the local jurisdiction where the offence was committed or the consequence is ensued. Illustration- A was hit by a truck in Noida and died in the hospital of Gurugram. Here, the place of offence is Noida whereas the consequence i.e., death was taken in place in Gurugram. The offence may be inquired into or tried by any court of either area by virtue of section 179.

[6]Section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973: Place of trial, when an act is an offence by its relation with another offence

It emphasises that when an act is an offence by reason of its relation with another offence or would be an offence if the doer is capable of committing that offence, then the first aforesaid offence may be inquired or tried by any court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed.
Illustration:
A charge of abetment may be inquired or tried either in a Court where the abetment was committed, or where the offence was committed through abetment. A charge of receiving stolen goods may be inquired or trial where goods were stolen or place where goods were received by someone dishonestly.

[7]Section 181 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973- Place of trial in certain offences – It laid down following place of trial in certain offences:

  1. An offence of thug with or without murder or, of dacoity with or without murder or, of association with a gang of dacoits, or dodge the custody, may be inquired or tried in a court where the offence was committed or the person has been found.
  2. An offence of kidnapping/abduction may be inquired or tried in a court where the person was kidnapped/abducted or, where the person is hidden, passed or kept.
  3. An offence of theft, robbery or, extortion may be inquired into or tried in a court where the offence was committed or the stolen property was recovered by any person who knew or has reasons to believe that the property he received or retained is a stolen property.
  4. An offence of criminal misappropriation or, of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried in a court where that offence was committed or any part of the property was acquired by the accused.
  5. Any offence that includes the possession of stolen property may be inquired or tried by a Court within the local jurisdiction that offence was committed or the stolen property was possessed by any person who received it knowing or having reasons to believe it to be stolen property.

[8]Section 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973– Offences committed on a journey or voyage:

It emphasises that when an offence is committed by the person or against the person or thing in virtue of which the said offence was committed, in a continuous journey or voyage, then that offence may be inquired or tried in a court wherefrom the person or that thing was passed throughout the journey or voyage.

[9]Section 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973– Place of trial for offences triable together:

It provides that if various offences were committed by one person, then he can be tried at one trial by virtue of Section 219, 220 and 221.

[10]Section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973– Power to order cases to be tried in different session divisions

It empowered the State Government to direct any case or class of cases for an inquiry into or trial in any session division of any district. Provided that such direction is not contrary to any previously given direction by the High Court or the Supreme Court or, not in violation of any law for being in force.

[11]Section 186 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973– High Court to decide, in case of doubt, district where inquiry or trial shall take place:

When the same offence was tried by two or more courts, then the question of cognizance will arise as to which court ought to inquire into or try that offence:

A. The High Court will decide whether the Courts are subordinate to that High Court.

B. The Court that has commenced the proceedings first will inquire or try that offence if the Courts are not subordinate to the same High Court. Hence, all other proceedings will be discontinued.

[12]Section 187 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973– Power to issue summons or warrant for offence committed beyond local jurisdiction

When a first-class Magistrate has reasons to believe that a person living within his local jurisdiction has committed an offence outside his jurisdiction (within or outside India), then such Magistrate may inquire into the offence in the same manner keeping in mind offence was committed within his jurisdiction.

If more than one first class magistrate is having such jurisdiction, then the High Court will take the cognizance of the case and will decide the jurisdiction.

[13]Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973- Offences committed outside India

It emphasises that any offence committed by an Indian citizen on high seas or elsewhere or, by a non- citizen on any Indian registered aircraft or ship may be inquired or tried in the court where that person will be found. Provided that such offence shall be inquired or tried by any court in India, only after the prior approval of the Central Government.

[14]Section 189 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973– Receipt of evidence relating to offences committed outside India- If the Central Government seems fit, it can direct to deliver the duplicates of the depositions that were produced before a judicial officer or diplomatic or consular representative of India, to the court conducting such trial or inquiry, shall receive it as evidence of the offence committed.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS

Mohan Baitha and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (2001):[15]

In this above-mentioned case, the complainant, father of the deceased narrated the chain of events in his complaint as his daughter just after her marriage was subjected to cruelty by her husband for dowry. She died within three years of their marriage. The complaint was filed in the High Court of Patna whereas the offence was committed in the state Uttar Pradesh. The accused were held liable under various Sections like 304B, 34 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

They appealed in the Supreme Court that the Patna High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction in this case as the offence was committed in Uttar Pradesh. The court relied upon Section 220 of Criminal Procedure Code,1973, which says more than one offence committed by the same person can be tried at one trial. The offence of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code) was committed at Patna. So, Section 304 B of the IPC can be held under Section 220 of Criminal Procedure Code and can be tried along with 406 of the IPC at Patna High Court. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

[16]Smt. Sujata Mukherjee Vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee (1997):

In this case, the appellant was humiliated by her in-laws on account of dowry demands in her in-law’s house at Rajgarh and also by her husband at her parents’ house at Raipur. A complaint was filed before the CJM under Section 498A, 506B and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents had stated that all the accused other than the husband humiliated the appellant at Rajgarh.

So, the CJM has no territorial jurisdiction to try the offence on all accused other than the husband who has also assaulted the appellant at Raipur. This plea was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate but was appreciated by the High Court and ordered to transfer the case of all accused other than the husbands case to Rajgarh. The appellant challenged the order of High Court and came before the Supreme Court. The appellant has alleged that she was given a persistent cruel treatment first at Rajgarh and then at Raipur. So, the incidents that took place at Raipur is not that isolated one, but consequential to the series of the incident happened at Rajgarh. Therefore, the impugned judgement of the High Court was set aside and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to proceed with the case.

[17]Om Hemrajani v. State of U.P. and Anr. (2004)

The respondent, a Dubai based bank filed a complaint against the petitioner that he has obtained loans from the bank on the personal guarantee. But instead of discharging the liabilities, the petitioner fled away. The petitioner was found in Ghaziabad. The Magistrate of Ghaziabad took cognizance of offence and issued a non- bailable warrants against him. The petitioner sought quashing the order of the Magistrate on the contention that no course of action will arise as the Court at Ghaziabad has no territorial jurisdiction to inquire or try the offence committed in Dubai. The High Court rejected the contention on the basis of Section 188 of Criminal Procedure Code. The accused filed a SLP (Special Leave Petition) before the Supreme Court challenging the order given by the High Court. The Court observed that when a citizen of India committed an offence outside India, then as per section 188 of Criminal Procedure Code,1973; he shall be tried in a Court within whose local jurisdiction he may be found. Therefore, the order of the High Court is maintainable.

CONCLUSION
In this article, we have discussed that the place of offence and inquiry is not necessarily the same. It is dependent upon the circumstances in which the offence is committed. Section 177 to 189 of Criminal Procedure Code deals with all possible circumstances in which an offence can be committed.

But there are cases when the Court takes a cognizance of those offences that are committed outside the jurisdiction or, where an offence tried by more than one Court or, an offence committed by an Indian citizen in a foreign country.

REFERENCES

  1. 1858 Cr LC 431
  2. https://advocatetanmoy.com/2018/03/02/the-jurisdiction-of-the-criminal-courts-in-inquiries-and-trials-in-india/  
  3. http://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/jurisdiction-of-criminal-courts-in-india-code-of-criminal-procedure/118016
  4. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
  5. The Code of Criminal Procedure by Justice YV Chandrachud and VR Manohar- Ratanalal and Dheeraj Lal- 16th edition 2002.

[1] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 177, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India)

[2] Nasiruddin Khan V. State of Bihar (1973) AIR 1973 SC 186, 1973 CriLJ 241, (1973) 3 SCC 99

[3] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 178, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India)

[4] Mangal Das RR V. State of Maharashtra (1966)1966 AIR 128, 1965 SCR (2) 894

[5] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 179, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India)

[6] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 180, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India)

[7] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 181, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India)

[8] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 183, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India)

[9] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 184, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India)

[10] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 185, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India)

[11] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 186, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India)

[12] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 187, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India)

[13] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 188, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India)

[14] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 189, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India)

[15] Mohan Baitha and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (2001) AIR 2001 SC 1490, 2001 (1) ALD Cri 644, 2001 (2) ALT Cri 26, 2001 (49) BLJR 1171, 2001 CriLJ 1738, 2001 (2) Crimes 83 SC, I (2001) DMC 687 SC, JT 2001 (4) SC 27, 2001 (2) SCALE 623, (2001) 4 SCC 350

[16] Smt. Sujata Mukherjee Vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee (1997)

[17] Om Hemrajani v. State of U.P. and Anr. (2004) Special Leave Petition (CRL) 99 of 2004

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version