The offences contemplated under this section are those which are not complete till a special consequence has ensued. Thus “consequences” constitute the essential ingredient of the offence to be covered under this section.
The section, however, does not extend to offence punishable under Section 376, IPC. The cases of cheating, deception , dishonestly inducing delivery of property etc. may be covered under this section and either of the Courts from whose jurisdiction they were committed and in whose jurisdiction its consequences ensues shall have jurisdiction to try such cases.
However, the question of Court’s jurisdiction in cases involving the offence of criminal breach of trust and criminal misappropriation of property is to be governed by Section 181 (4) of the Code.
In Mubarak Ali v. State of Bombay, the accused from Karanchi made false representations to the complainant at Bombay through letters, telegrams and telephone talks as a consequence of which the complainant parted with money at Bombay on the faith of such representations.
The Supreme Court held that the entire offence took place at Bombay and that the representations, though made from Karanchi, were made at Bombay and, therefore, the Bombay Court had the jurisdiction to try the case of cheating.
In Purushottam Das Dalmia v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court held that the Court having the jurisdiction to try the offence of conspiracy also has the jurisdiction to try an offence constituted by the overt acts which are committed in pursuance of the conspiracy beyond its jurisdiction and all the offences can be tried together jointly by the Court trying the offence of conspiracy.
Where the wife was tortured at her husband’s place in Hoogly and she fell ill as a consequence of such torture at her father’s place at Howrah, the Court at Howrah had the jurisdiction to try the case under Section 498-A of IPC.
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Suresh Kaushal, the allegations were that wife was subjected to physical torture when she was pregnant and she had to be taken back to her parental home at place J. Due to beating, miscarriage took place at J.
The High Court held that Court at J had the jurisdiction to try the offence. The plea of the accused that since acts alleged against him took place at I, where couple resided after marriage and hence Court at J had no jurisdiction was, rejected by the High Court.
The Supreme Court had held in the case of K. Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab, that where the act of misrepresentation by the accused was done at one place and consequent delivery of property took at another place, the accused could be tried for the offence of cheating by Court at either of these two places.
Where the accused kidnapped a girl from a village within the jurisdiction of one Court and actually committed a rape on her in another village within the jurisdiction of another Court, it was held that the provisions of Section 179 of the Code were not attracted because the consequence of rape was not an essential part of the offence of kidnapping.
As regards the offence of defamation, the Court of the place where the defamatory letter was written and posted or the place where it was received or read has the jurisdiction to inquire into or try the case.
Thus in the case of Subramaniam Swamy v. P.S. Pai, the alleged defamatory statement was made by the accused in a press conference at Chandigarh, and that statement was published in a newspaper which was published and circulated in Bombay. It was held that since consequence was completed at Bombay, hence both the Courts at Bombay and Chandigarh would have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complainant could move either of these Courts.
Where the manufacture of substandard fertilizer was done at one place and its sale at another, the manufacturer could be tried for an offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 by the Court at the place of sale of the fertilizer.
Where any Magistrate of the First Class has the power to take cognizance of any offence, no matter that the offence is committed within his territorial jurisdiction or not, it was held that the complaint cannot be quashed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of the Court.