As hereinbefore stated, the appellants as
assesses, had residences both at Bhopal and Aurangabad and had been
submitting their income tax returns at Bhopal. The search operations
were conducted simultaneously both at Bhopal and Aurangabad in
course whereof allegedly the appellants, in spite of queries made, did not
disclose that they in fact did hold a locker located at Aurangabad. They
in fact denied to hold any locker, either individually or jointly. The locker,
eventually located, though at Aurangabad, has a perceptible co-relation
or nexus with the subject matter of assessment and thus the returns filed
by the appellants at Bhopal which in turn were within the purview of the
search operations. The search conducted simultaneously at Bhopal and
Aurangabad has to be construed as a single composite expedition with a
common mission. Having regard to the overall facts and the accusation
of false statement made about the existence of the locker in such a joint
drill, it cannot be deduced that in the singular facts and circumstances,
no part of the offence alleged had been committed within the
jurisdictional limits of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal.
72. Chapter XIII of the Code sanctions the jurisdiction of the
criminal courts in inquries and trials. Whereas Section 177 of the Code
stipulates the ordinary place of inquiry and trial, Section 178 enumerates
the places of inquiry or trial. In terms of Section 179, when an act is an
offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a
consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or
tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done
or such consequence has ensued. For immediate reference, Sections 177
and 178 are extracted hereinbelow.
“177: Ordinary place of inquiry and trial – Every
offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried
by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed.
178: Place of inquiry or trial – (a) When it is
uncertain in which of several local areas an
offence was committed, or
(b) where an offence is committed partly in one
local area and partly in another, or
(c) where an offence is continuing one, and
continues to be committed in more local areas
than one, or
(d) where it consists of several acts done in
different local areas, it may be inquired into or
tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of
such local areas.
73. As would be evident from hereinabove, ordinarily every
offence ought to be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local
jurisdiction it had been committed as is mandated by Section 177 of the
Code. Section 178, however marks a departure contingent on the
eventualities as listed in clauses (a),(b), (c) and (d) of Section 178 to
identify the court that would have the jurisdiction to try the offences as
contemplated therein.
74. Though the concept of “cause of action“ identifiable with a
civil action is not routinely relevant for the determination of
territoriality of criminal courts as had been ruled by this Court in
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and
Another, (2014) 9 SCC 129, their Lordships however were cognizant of
the word “ordinarily” used in Section 177 of the Code to acknowledge the
exceptions contained in Section 178 thereof. Section 179 also did not
elude notice .
75. Be that as it may, on a cumulative reading of Sections 177,
178 and 179 of the Code in particular and the inbuilt flexibility
discernible in the latter two provisions, we are of the comprehension that
in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case where to repeat, a
single and combine search operation had been undertaken
simultaneously both at Bhopal and Aurangabad for the same purpose,
the alleged offence can be tried by courts otherwise competent at both
the aforementioned places. To confine the jurisdiction within the
territorial limits to the court at Aurangabad would amount, in our view,
to impermissible and illogical truncation of the ambit of Sections 178
and 179 of the Code. The objection with regard to the competence of the
Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal is hereby rejected.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.824 OF 2016
[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRL) NO. 1474 OF 2012]
BABITA LILA & ANOTHER
V
UNION OF INDIA
Citation:(2016) 9 SCC647
Print Page
assesses, had residences both at Bhopal and Aurangabad and had been
submitting their income tax returns at Bhopal. The search operations
were conducted simultaneously both at Bhopal and Aurangabad in
course whereof allegedly the appellants, in spite of queries made, did not
disclose that they in fact did hold a locker located at Aurangabad. They
in fact denied to hold any locker, either individually or jointly. The locker,
eventually located, though at Aurangabad, has a perceptible co-relation
or nexus with the subject matter of assessment and thus the returns filed
by the appellants at Bhopal which in turn were within the purview of the
search operations. The search conducted simultaneously at Bhopal and
Aurangabad has to be construed as a single composite expedition with a
common mission. Having regard to the overall facts and the accusation
of false statement made about the existence of the locker in such a joint
drill, it cannot be deduced that in the singular facts and circumstances,
no part of the offence alleged had been committed within the
jurisdictional limits of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal.
72. Chapter XIII of the Code sanctions the jurisdiction of the
criminal courts in inquries and trials. Whereas Section 177 of the Code
stipulates the ordinary place of inquiry and trial, Section 178 enumerates
the places of inquiry or trial. In terms of Section 179, when an act is an
offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a
consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or
tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done
or such consequence has ensued. For immediate reference, Sections 177
and 178 are extracted hereinbelow.
“177: Ordinary place of inquiry and trial – Every
offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried
by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed.
178: Place of inquiry or trial – (a) When it is
uncertain in which of several local areas an
offence was committed, or
(b) where an offence is committed partly in one
local area and partly in another, or
(c) where an offence is continuing one, and
continues to be committed in more local areas
than one, or
(d) where it consists of several acts done in
different local areas, it may be inquired into or
tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of
such local areas.
73. As would be evident from hereinabove, ordinarily every
offence ought to be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local
jurisdiction it had been committed as is mandated by Section 177 of the
Code. Section 178, however marks a departure contingent on the
eventualities as listed in clauses (a),(b), (c) and (d) of Section 178 to
identify the court that would have the jurisdiction to try the offences as
contemplated therein.
74. Though the concept of “cause of action“ identifiable with a
civil action is not routinely relevant for the determination of
territoriality of criminal courts as had been ruled by this Court in
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and
Another, (2014) 9 SCC 129, their Lordships however were cognizant of
the word “ordinarily” used in Section 177 of the Code to acknowledge the
exceptions contained in Section 178 thereof. Section 179 also did not
elude notice .
75. Be that as it may, on a cumulative reading of Sections 177,
178 and 179 of the Code in particular and the inbuilt flexibility
discernible in the latter two provisions, we are of the comprehension that
in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case where to repeat, a
single and combine search operation had been undertaken
simultaneously both at Bhopal and Aurangabad for the same purpose,
the alleged offence can be tried by courts otherwise competent at both
the aforementioned places. To confine the jurisdiction within the
territorial limits to the court at Aurangabad would amount, in our view,
to impermissible and illogical truncation of the ambit of Sections 178
and 179 of the Code. The objection with regard to the competence of the
Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal is hereby rejected.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.824 OF 2016
[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRL) NO. 1474 OF 2012]
BABITA LILA & ANOTHER
V
UNION OF INDIA
Citation:(2016) 9 SCC647
