1

Subject: Code of Criminal Procedur-I

B.A.LL.B-VIIIth Sem
Subject Teacher: Dr. Md. Junaid
Teaching Material of Unit-I-C
Topic: Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts

Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts under CrPc.-Sections 177-189

As per Section 2(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure " inquiry" means every inquiry, other
than a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or Court;

The trial initiates when the inquiry process reaches a conclusion. It is the most significant and the
third piece of a legal continuing. It is the procedure by which the blame or guiltlessness of a
charge on an individual is found out.

Whenever an offence is committed, the first question which arises is that in whose jurisdiction
the offence would fall. The jurisdictional issue is the most important issue which needs to be
resolved so that the proceedings can begin without any hindrance. Sections 177-189 deals with
the concept of jurisdiction. Under normal circumstances, the case shall be inquired and tried by a
court under whose jurisdiction the offence has been committed.

However, there are certain cases where more than one Court have the power to inquire and try
the cases. Such issues have been explicitly dealt with by the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The Code also mentions the circumstances when the offence is committed by an
Indian citizen in a foreign country or by a foreign travelling in an aircraft or ship registered in
India. The courts need to consider all the factors governing the jurisdiction and begin with the
proceedings after referring to the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Original Place of Inquiry and Trial

Trial
 2

The trial commences when the inquiry stage comes to an end. It is the most important and the
third part of a judicial proceeding. It is the process by which the guilt or innocence of an
allegation on a person is ascertained.

Section 177 – This provision of the Code provides that the Court under whose jurisdiction, i.e.
within whose territorial limits the offence has been submitted just has the power to ask into and
attempt such case.

L. N. Mukherjee vs The State Of Madras

In this case it was held that the word ordinarily suggests that its provisions are not peremptory,
and the place of trial is not limited to the one mentioned in the section. This view has been
confirmed by the Supreme Court, which has observed that the word ‘ordinarily’ indicates that S.
177 is a general section, and must be read subject to the special provisions of sections which
follow it.

For the purpose of an offence under the Child Marriage Restraint Act, it is the place where the
marriage took place that is relevant. So, it is quite immaterial to inquire as to where or when or
by whom the tilak ceremony was performed. Under S. 177, the offence must ordinarily be tried
by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the marriage itself was solemnized.

Despite the provisions of S. 177, if any offence is inquired into or tried by a Magistrate who has
no territorial jurisdiction over the place of the offence, this would at most be an irregularity,
which can be cured by S. 462, if such trial has not occasioned any failure of justice.

So also, if when the offence was committed, the place was within the local jurisdiction of a
particular Magistrate, just because the locality is subsequently transferred to another district, this
does not oust the jurisdiction of that Magistrate.

Section 178

1. When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or

2. where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or
 3

3. where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas
than one, or

4. 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.

Section 178 arrangements with the circumstances where the offence has been submitted in more
than one spot. It provides that at the point when the spot of commission of the offence is
questionable in light of the fact that it has been submitted in a few spots or where an offence is
somewhat dedicated in one neighbourhood the rest in another region or at the point when the
offence includes a few demonstrations, submitted in various neighbourhoods;

On the off chance that any of the above conditions are satisfied, at that point, such offence might
be asked into or attempted by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such neighbourhood.

Thus, it has been held that the offence of consuming liquor without a permit is complete when
the liquor is drunk. In such a case, there can be no uncertainty as to the place of drinking, and
hence of the place where the offence is committed. Therefore, S. 178 cannot be invoked in such a
case to confer jurisdiction on a Magistrate.

In another case, the accused was a travelling agent of a firm employed to sell goods. He sold the
goods and misappropriated some money, in circumstances making it difficult to say exactly
where the various acts of embezzlement took place. The Court held that, under S. 178, the
accused could be tried either at the place where the firm was situated, or at any one of the various
districts through which he travelled.

Similarly, it has been held that if a defamatory letter is posted in Madras, with a view to its being
read in Tinnevelly, the offence of defamation could be tried either in Madras or in Tinnevelly.

In a case decided by the Madras High Court, an unlawful assembly had assembled at about 8
a.m., and done considerable damage to persons and property. When the Police arrived and fired
some shots, it dispersed temporarily, and thereafter formed into smaller groups and continued to
be on the spot till 10 a.m., when there was pelting of stones on a railway train. In the
 4

circumstances, it was held that both the occurrences, i.e. the one before the Police firing and the
other after the firing, were actually parts of one continuous rioting, and the case was covered by
clause (c) of S. 178.

Section 179 underlines that reality that when a demonstration is an offence in view of anything
which has been done and as a result which has followed, the said offence might be asked into or
attempted by a court of competent jurisdiction.

It provides

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.

Section 180- When an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an
offence or which would be an offence if the doer were capable of committing an offence, the
first-mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction
either act was done.

It deals with arrangements with the spot of trial when the demonstration submitted is an offence
since it is identified with some other offence. As indicated by it the offence which has been
submitted first must be asked into or attempted, when two acts are done regarding one another
and both are offences, by the court under whose jurisdiction both of the demonstrations have
been submitted. In every single such arrangement, the accentuation is consistently on where the
offence has been submitted, to determine the jurisdiction.

(a) A is wounded within the local limits of the jurisdiction of Court X, and dies within the local
limits of the jurisdiction of Court Z The offence of the culpable homicide of A may be inquired
into or tried either by X or Z.

(b) A is wounded with the local limits of the jurisdiction of Court X, and is, during ten days
within the local limits of the jurisdiction of Court Y, and during ten days more within the local
limits of the jurisdiction of Court Z, unable in the local limits of the jurisdiction of either Court
Y, or Court Z, to follow his ordinary pursuits. The offence of causing grievous hurt to A may be
inquired into or tried by X, Y or Z.
 5

(c) A is put in fear of injury with the local limits of the jurisdiction of Court X, and is thereby
induced, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of Court Y, to deliver property to the person
who put him in fear. The offence of extortion committed on A may be inquired into and tried
either by X or Y.

(d) A is wounded in Madras, and dies of his wounds in Poona. The offence of causing A’s death
may be inquired into and tried in Poona.

It has been held that the offence of falsification of accounts is complete as soon as the accounts
are falsified, and any consequence resulting from it is immaterial. Therefore, this offence is to be
tried only by the Court within whose jurisdiction the accounts were falsified, and not any other
Court.

In Rampratap v. The State, the Rajasthan High Court held that if a girl is kidnapped within the
jurisdiction of one Court and then raped within the jurisdiction of another Court, since it is part
of the same transaction, the accused can be tried for both the offences by the same Court.

Jagan Nath v. State of Haryana,

Sharply differing from Rampratap’s case (above), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held
that S. 179 of the Code is not attracted in such a case, as the two offences are totally different.
Hence, the offences are to be tried separately by the Courts within whose jurisdiction the
respective acts are committed.

The jurisdiction in Specific Offenses

S. 180 provides that if an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also
an offence, the first-mentioned offence may also be inquired into or tried by a Court within
whose local jurisdiction either act was done.

(a) A charge of abetment may be inquired into or tried by the Court within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction the abetment was committed or by the Court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the offence abetted was committed.

(b) A charge of receiving or retaining stolen goods may be inquired into or tried either by the
Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the goods were stolen or by any Court within
 6

the local limits of whose jurisdiction any of them were, at any time, dishonestly received or
retained.

(c) A charge of wrongfully concealing a person known to have been kidnapped may be inquired
into or tried by the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the wrongful concealing
took place or by the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the kidnapping took
place.

In any case, section 181 indicates conditions in the event of specific offences. As indicated by
section 181(1), the trial can likewise be started where the charged is found, other than where the
offence was submitted. Section 181(1) discusses the offences, when not submitted in a solitary
spot. It manages the accompanying cases:

 Thug or murder submitted while playing out the demonstration of hooligan, dacoity, or
dacoity with murder and so forth where the offence is submitted or where the denounced
is found.

 Kidnapping or abduction of an individual the spot from where the individual was
grabbed/kidnapped or where the individual was hidden or passed on or kept.

 Robbery, extortion or theft – the Court where the offence has been submitted or where
the taken property is controlled, gotten or conveyed, has the jurisdiction to attempt such a
case.

 Criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust – where the offence has been
carried out or where any piece of the property which is the topic of the offence has been
gotten or held, required to be returned or represented, by the blamed.

Yet, the above section manages offences when the guilty party is voyaging, as clear from the
idea of the offences as indicated under this section.

Jurisdiction when Offense Committed by Letters/Post

 7

Section 182 arrangements with offences submitted by letters and so on. Under this section, if any
offence incorporates tricking, if the injured individual has been hoodwinked by methods for
letters or media transmission messages, it will be investigated by the Court under whose nearby
jurisdiction such letters or messages have been sent or got; and under the neighbourhood
jurisdiction of the Court in which the property has been conveyed by the individual misled or has
been gotten by the charged individual. It says

1. Any offence which includes cheating may, if the deception is practised by means of
letters or telecommunication messages, be inquired into or tried by any Court within
whose local jurisdiction such letters or messages were sent or were received; and any
offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property may be inquired into or
tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the property was delivered by the person
deceived or was received by the accused person.
2. Any offence punishable under section 495 or section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860) may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence
was committed or the offender last resided with his or her spouse by the first marriage, or
the wife by first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of
offence.

Jurisdiction when Offense Committed during a Voyage

Section 183 When an offence is committed, whilst the person by or against whom, or the thing in
respect of which, the offence is committed is in the course of performing a journey or voyage,
the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court through or into whose local jurisdiction that
person or thing passed in the course of that journey or voyage.

Jurisdiction for Offenses Jointly Triable-Section 184

The spot of trial for offences which are triable together comprises of two conditions.

 At the point when an individual submits offences, to such an extent that he might be
accused of, attempted at one trial for, each such offence as per the arrangements of
section 219, section 220 or section 221.
 8

 At the point when the offences or offences have been submitted by a few people, in a way
that the Court may charge and attempt them together, as per the arrangements of section
223.

In both of the conditions, the Court which is equipped to ask and attempt shall do likewise.

The jurisdiction in Other Cases

Section 185

Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding provisions of this Chapter, the State
Government may direct that any cases or class of cases committed for trial in any district may be
tried in any sessions division:

Section 185 deals with arrangements with the intensity of the State Government, as indicated by
which the legislature can coordinate that any cases or class of cases which have been submitted
for trial in any region, might be attempted in a sessions court.

It needs to guarantee that such heading isn’t conflicting with any of the bearings which have
been as of now given by some other Superior Court, according to the Constitution, or as
referenced under the Code of Criminal Procedure or under some other law for the present in
power.

Section 186 – High Court to decide, in case of doubt, district where inquiry or trial shall
take place

Where two or more Courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to
which of them ought to inquire into or try that offence, the question shall be decided-

1. if the Courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court;

2. if the Courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by the High Court within the
local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first
commenced,
and thereupon all other proceedings in respect of that offence shall be discontinued.
 9

Section 186 tends to the circumstance wherein the awareness of a specific offence has been taken
by at least two courts and perplexity emerges concerning which of the Courts will ask into or
attempt that offence, in such a case, just the High Courts have the position to determine the
disarray. The criteria for settling such issues are as per the following:

 In the event that a similar High Court administers the courts in question, at that point by
that High Court.

 In the event that a similar High Court doesn’t oversee the courts in question, at that point,
by the High Court which initially initiated the procedures as a re-appraising criminal
court. From that point, the various procedures in regard to that offence will be stopped.

Section 187 – Power to issue summons or warrant for offence committed beyond local
jurisdiction

1. When a Magistrate of the first class sees reason to believe that any person within his local
jurisdiction has committed outside such jurisdiction (whether within or outside India) an
offence which cannot, under the provisions of sections 177 to 185 (both inclusive), or any
other law for the time being in force, be inquired into or tried within such jurisdiction but
is under some law for the time being in force triable in India, such Magistrate may
inquire into the offence as if it had been committed within such local jurisdiction and
compel such person in the manner hereinbefore provided to appear before him, and send
such person to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to inquire into or try such offence, or, if
such offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and such person is
ready and willing to give bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate acting under this
section, take a bond with or without sureties for his appearance before the Magistrate
having such jurisdiction.

2. When there are more Magistrates than one having such jurisdiction and the Magistrate
acting under this section cannot satisfy himself as to the Magistrate to or before whom
such person should be sent or bound to appear, the case shall be reported for the orders of
the High Court.
 10

Section 187 states the intensity of a Magistrate to give summons or warrant for offences which
have been submitted past his neighbourhood jurisdiction. In such a circumstance the Magistrate
has the power to request such an individual to be created before him and afterwards send him to
the Magistrate of able jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction when Offense Committed Outside India

The conditions identified with the offences when submitted outside the domain of India have
been managed under section 188. When an offence is committed outside India-

1. by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or

2. by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India,
he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place
within India at which he may be found:

Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no
such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the
Central Government.

The most significant factor in the previously mentioned arrangement is where the offence has
been submitted. Section 188 explicitly manages the situation when the offence is submitted
outside India. These offences must be esteemed to have been submitted in India, whenever
submitted by an Indian resident, in high oceans or in some other spot.

Additionally, when the offence is submitted by an individual who in spite of the fact that isn’t an
Indian resident yet is going in any Indian flying machine or ship.

At the point when the arrangements of Section 188 are relevant, at that point the Central
Government may, in the event that it regards fit, direct that the duplicates of affidavits or
displays given to a legal official or before a strategic or consular delegate of India in or for that
domain will be gotten as proof by the Court holding such request or trial regardless in which
such Court may give a commission for accepting proof with regards to the issues to which such
statements or shows related.

Section 189 – Receipt of evidence relating to offences committed outside India

 11

When any offence alleged to have been committed in a territory outside India is being inquired
into or tried under the provisions of section 188, the Central Government may, if it thinks fit,
direct that copies of depositions made or exhibits produced before a judicial officer in or for that
territory or before a diplomatic or consular representative of India in or for that territory shall be
received as evidence by the Court holding such inquiry or trial in any case in which such Court
might issue a commission for taking evidence as to the matters to which such depositions or
exhibits relate.

Section 188 and Section 189 ought to be perused together. They continue on the premise that a
criminal is in India and can be found anyplace in India. The Court needs to discover the blamed
and the seeing for the denounced has as done where the charged shows up.

It is obvious from the above section that the denounced can’t be found by a minor protest or by
the Police. Further, it is by outlandish for the casualty of an offence submitted outside India, to
visit India and attempt to determine the area of the denounced and afterwards approach the court.
The parity of comfort is higher on such an injured individual. Hence, all such focuses have been
considered while drafting Section 188 and Section 189 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The said unfortunate casualty has been vested with the privilege to move toward any Court in
India as indicated by his comfort and document a case in regard to the offence submitted upon
him by an Indian abroad.

In Reg vs. Benito Lopez, dealing with the question of jurisdiction of English courts in respect of
offences committed on the high seas by foreigners on board English ships, decision was rendered
by 14 Judges, i.e., all the Judges of the Court except Bramwell, B. The accused was held to have
been found within jurisdiction of the county where he was tried. The decision refers to principles
of International Law that a person is liable to be punished of all such offences wheresoever
committed. Interpreting the word ‘found’ in provision under consideration in that case, which
was to the following effect :

“If any person being a British subject charged with having committed any crime or offence on
board any British ship on the high seas, or in any foreign port or harbour; or if any person, not
 12

being a British subject, charged with having committed any crime or offence on board any
British ship on the high seas, is found within the jurisdiction of any court of justice in Her
Majesty’s dominions, which would have cognizance of such crime or offence if committed
within the limits of its ordinary jurisdiction, such court shall have jurisdiction to hear and try the
case as if such crime or offence had been committed within such limits: provided that nothing
contained in this section shall be construed to alter or interfere with the Act 12 and 13 Vict. C.
96.”

Analysis of Jurisdiction of Criminal Court

Section 177 of Cr.P.C postulates that ordinarily offence shall be inquired into and tried by a court
within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178, inter alia, deals with situations
when it is uncertain in which of several local areas, an offence is committed or partly committed
in one area and partly in another. The section provides that the offence can be inquired into or
tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of the local areas mentioned therein.

Under Section 179, offence is triable where act is done or consequences thereof ensued. Section
180 deals with the place of trial where act is an offence by reason of its relation to other offence.
It provides that the first mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose
local jurisdiction either act was done. In all these sections, for jurisdiction the emphasis is on the
place where the offence has been committed. There is, however, a departure under Section
181(1) where additionally place of trial can also be the place where the accused is found, besides
the court within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed. But the said section deals with
offences committed by those who are likely to be on move which is evident from nature of
offences mentioned in the section. Section 181(1) is in respect of the offences where the
offenders are not normally located at a fixed place and that explains the departure.

Section 183 deals with offences committed during journey or voyage. Section 186 deals with
situation where two or more courts take cognizance of the same offence and in case of doubt as
to which one of the courts has jurisdiction to proceed further, the High Court decides the matter.
Section 187 deals with a situation where a person within local jurisdiction of a Magistrate has
committed an offence outside such jurisdiction. The Magistrate can compel such a person to
 13

appear before him and then send him to the Magistrate which has jurisdiction to inquire into or
try such offence.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, the expression abovenoted in Section 188 is to be construed.
The same expression was also there in the old Code. From the scheme of Chapter XIII of the
Code, it is clear that neither the place of business or place of residence of the petitioner and for
that matter of even the complainant is of any relevance. The relevant factor is the place of
commission of offence. By legal fiction, Section 188 which deals with offence committed
outside India, makes the place at which the offender may be found, to be a place of commission
of offence. Section 188 proceeds on the basis that a fugitive from justice may be found anywhere
in India. The finding of the accused has to be by the Court where accused appears. From the
plain and clear language of the section, it is evident that the finding of the accused cannot be by
the complainant or the Police. Further, it is not expected that a victim of an offence which was
committed outside India should come to India and first try to ascertain where the accused is or
may be and then approach that court. The convenience of such a victim is of importance. That
has been kept in view by Section 188 of the Code. A victim may come to India and approach any
court convenient to him and file complaint in respect of offence committed abroad by the Indian.
The convenience of a person who is hiding after committing offence abroad and is fugitive from
justice is not relevant. It is in this context, the expression in question has to be interpreted.
Section 188 has been subject matter of interpretation for about 150 years.

Om Hemrajani Versus State of U.P. and another

It was held that the word ‘found’ is used in its most extensive sense, and was intended to include
all cases by giving jurisdiction to try at any place where the prisoner might happen to be at the
time of trial. The object of the provision was to get rid of all questions about local jurisdiction.
Lord Campbell, Chief Justice, in his opinion, dealing with the contention that if the prisoner was
brought within the jurisdiction of the court against his will, he cannot be said to have been found
there within the meaning of the Act, held that a man is ‘found’, within the meaning of that Act in
any place where he is actually present.