Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: Dani and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 11, 1935
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/802607

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Dani and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1936Mad317

Excerpt

- ordermenon, j.1. the petitioners were charged by the police, under section 420 read with section 120-b, with criminal conspiracy for cheating the public at large. the charge was so understood by the joint magistrate also as his order shows. the question is whether, when, as in this ease, the conspiracy was entered into in bombay where the accused lived, the joint magistrate of pollachi has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. all that is urged in support of the view that he has, is that one or two acts of cheating were done within his jurisdiction. in my view this is insufficient to confer jurisdiction to try the charge of criminal conspiracy. conspiracy was complete when the parties entered into such an agreement; and does not depend on the subsequent act of cheating. as the allegation is that it was in bombay, where the accused reside that they entered into the conspiracy, the charge should have been laid there. the lower court cannot be clothed with jurisdiction to try the charge of conspiracy merely because the conspiracy and the different acts of cheating might form part of the same transaction, and that the charges in respect of them might be tried together. it can have jurisdiction only in respect of the acts of cheating alleged to have been committed within its jurisdiction. the proceedings before the lower court are therefore quashed. this, of course, will not preclude the lower court from taking cognizance of specific charges of cheating or the authorities from charging the accused for criminal conspiracy before the proper tribunal.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Menon, J.

1. The petitioners were charged by the police, under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, with criminal conspiracy for cheating the public at large. The charge was so understood by the Joint Magistrate also as his order shows. The question is whether, when, as in this ease, the conspiracy was entered into in Bombay where the accused lived, the Joint Magistrate of Pollachi has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. All that is urged in support of the view that he has, is that one or two acts of cheating were done within his jurisdiction. In my view this is insufficient to confer jurisdiction to try the charge of criminal conspiracy. Conspiracy was complete when the parties entered into such an agreement; and does not depend on the subsequent act of cheating. As the allegation is that it was in Bombay, where the accused reside that they entered into the conspiracy, the charge should have been laid there. The lower Court cannot be clothed with jurisdiction to try the charge of conspiracy merely because the conspiracy and the different acts of cheating might form part of the same transaction, and that the charges in respect of them might be tried together. It can have jurisdiction only in respect of the acts of cheating alleged to have been committed within its jurisdiction. The proceedings before the lower Court are therefore quashed. This, of course, will not preclude the lower Court from taking cognizance of specific charges of cheating or the authorities from charging the accused for criminal conspiracy before the proper tribunal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial