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.

The Empress Vs. Sunker Gope

The Empress vs Sunker Gope

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Sep 17, 1880
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/866561

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
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 66 - Dishonestly retaining in British Territory property stolen beyond British Territory. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Empress

Respondent

Sunker Gope

Legal References

Cases Referred
Reg v. Lakkya Govind
Reported In
(1881)ILR6Cal307

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act x of 1872), section 66 - dishonestly retaining in british territory property stolen beyond british territory. - richard garth, c.j.1. we are of opinion that the conviction of shunker gope, for an offence under section 411 of the penal code, is legal, and that we should not interfere. shunker gope confessed to having stolen cattle in the kingdom of nepal, and he was found in possession of them in british territory. section 66 of the criminal procedure code, illustration (b), lays down that' a charge of receiving or retaining stolen goods may be inquired into and tried, either in the district in which the goods were stolen or in any district in which any of them were at any time dishonestly received or retained.' now the theft having occurred beyond british territory, the prisoner could not be tried for that offence in our courts, see reg. v. apivigadu (i. l. r., 1 mad., 171), but the present case seems to be very similar to one reported in the indian law reports, reg v. lakkya govind (i. l. r., 1 bom., 50); and therefore we think that the conviction may be sustained.2. it is unnecessary for us to say anything on the question of extradition; that matter will be dealt with by the local authorities under the orders of government.

Full Judgment

Richard Garth, C.J.

1. We are of opinion that the conviction of Shunker Gope, for an offence under Section 411 of the Penal Code, is legal, and that we should not interfere. Shunker Gope confessed to having stolen cattle in the kingdom of Nepal, and he was found in possession of them in British territory. Section 66 of the Criminal Procedure Code, illustration (b), lays down that' a charge of receiving or retaining stolen goods may be inquired into and tried, either in the district in which the goods were stolen or in any district in which any of them were at any time dishonestly received or retained.' Now the theft having occurred beyond British territory, the prisoner could not be tried for that offence in our Courts, see Reg. v. Apivigadu (I. L. R., 1 Mad., 171), but the present case seems to be very similar to one reported in the Indian Law Reports, Reg v. Lakkya Govind (I. L. R., 1 Bom., 50); and therefore we think that the conviction may be sustained.

2. It is unnecessary for us to say anything on the question of extradition; that matter will be dealt with by the local authorities under the orders of Government.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial