Territorial jurisdiction for conspiracy trials extends to substantive offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy, despite formation elsewhere

A court with territorial jurisdiction over substantive offences committed in pursuance of a conspiracy may also try the conspiracy charge itself, even if the conspiracy was formed outside that jurisdiction. The territorial rule in section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was held not to be an absolute bar where joinder and trial provisions permit the offences to be tried together. On that basis, the Court of Session at Madras had jurisdiction to try the conspiracy count, and the challenge to the commitment failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court of Session at Madras could try the offence of criminal conspiracy allegedly committed at Calcutta, when the substantive offences in pursuance of the conspiracy were committed within its territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Court held that the court having jurisdiction to try offences committed in pursuance of a conspiracy may also try the conspiracy itself, even if the conspiracy was committed outside its jurisdiction. It relied on the principle that the provisions governing joinder and trial of offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure are not controlled by the territorial rule in section 177, and that section 177 does not create an absolute bar to trial by a court other than the one within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed.

Conclusion: The Madras Court of Session had jurisdiction to try the conspiracy charge, and the challenge to the commitment failed.

---