https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311703 Territorial limits did not bar trial of connected offences where a conspiracy was formed within one court's jurisdiction and the overt acts were part of the same transaction. The procedural scheme was treated as permitting joint trial of the conspiracy and the connected forgery-related offences, even though some acts occurred elsewhere. A conspiracy charge framed in the alternative was held lawful because it described one agreement and used alternative legal characterisations of the agreed offences, without prejudice. The jury directions were read as a whole, and no misdirection was established because the judge repeatedly left final fact-finding to the jury. en-us Wed, 19 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jan 2024 14:35:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311703 Territorial limits did not bar trial of connected offences where a conspiracy was formed within one court's jurisdiction and the overt acts were part of the same transaction. The procedural scheme was treated as permitting joint trial of the conspiracy and the connected forgery-related offences, even though some acts occurred elsewhere. A conspiracy charge framed in the alternative was held lawful because it described one agreement and used alternative legal characterisations of the agreed offences, without prejudice. The jury directions were read as a whole, and no misdirection was established because the judge repeatedly left final fact-finding to the jury. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 19 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311703