L. N. Mukherjee v. the State of Madras

Judgment

Pur11slintlttmdaJ l>almitt Slttle of W esl Rengal Ragltubar D•y•I ] . April i9. SUPRE..'1E COURT REPORTS [1962] addressed to the appellant's firm is not proved to have returned to the dead-letter office or to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. If it was delivered by the postman at the Shop Xo. 16, ordinary courteRy requires that that shop would have Rent over the letter to thl' neighbouring Shop Xo. 19. The appell1int's conduce in not ta.king any action to find out w'ia.t was the result of his rrprcsentation to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports is consistent with the view that he did receive the reply of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. In the l'ircumstance8, an expression of opinion t}rn.t. t lie let tor would have reached the appt•llant cirnnot. b,. said to amount to a misdirection. Tho learner!

Judge is perfectly justified to ask the jury to take into consideration the probabilities of a. case, whore no definite evidence, in connection with an incidental matter, exists. We do not consider that the contentions raised do a.mount to misdirections. In view of the above, we see no force in this appoal a.nd accordingly dismiss it. Appr.al dismi.ised. L. N. MUKHERJEE THE STATE OF MADRAS (K. SuB!lA RA.o and ltao1n:llAR DAYAL, JJ.) Criminal Trial- Jurisdiction-Court having jurisdictio>t to tr1: offences cammitted in pursua11ce of conspiracy, •f can try the oJJence of criminal conspiracy-Code of Cmnii:al Proctdure, 1898 (V of 1898), ss. 177, 239-lndian Penal Code, 1860 (Act X LV of 1860). ss. 120-B, 420, 463. The appellant was committed to the Court of Session at ~iadras for trial under s. 120-B read with s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code and for committing the offence o! forgery in pursuance of that conspiracy.

The Criminal conspiracy was alleged to have been cvmmitted at Calcutta, while the other offences in I pursuance thereof were committed at Madras. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that the ;iiadras Court had no jurisdiction to try the offence of crirninal conspiracy. H cld, that the court having the jurisdiction to try the offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy, has also th(! jurisdiction to try the offence of crin1inal conspiracy, even though it \Vas committed outside its territorial jurisdiction. Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal, [IC,62] 2 S.C.R. ror, applied. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 1960. Appeal by speoia.I leave from the ju<lgment and order dated April 14, 1960, of the i\faclrns High Court in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 246 of 1960. D. N. J[ ukherjee, for the appellant. M. S. K. Sastri and T. 111. Sen, for respondent. 1961. April 19. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 196r L. lV.

111ukherje6 State of 1'+1adras RAGRUBAR DAYAL, J.-This appeal, by special llaghubar leave, is against the order of the Madras High Court Dayal J. dismissing the application for quashing the commitment of the case against the appellant, to the Court of Session, for trial of offences of criminal conspiracy to cheat under s. 120-B read with s. 420, Indian Penal Code, and for the offence of forgery committed in pursuance of that conspiracy. The criminal conspiracy is alleged to have been committed at Calcutta. The other offences in pursuance of the conspirncy are alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the Court of Session at Madras. The quashing of the commitment was sought on the ground that thP Courts at Madras had no jurisdiction to try the offence of conspiracy. The High Court did not accept the contention and dismissNI f,he application.

The sole question for cunsideration in this appeal is whether the offence of conspiracy alleged to have been committed at Calcutta can be tried by the Court of Session at Madras. We have held t,his day, in Purushottamdas Dalmia v. The State of West Bengal(') that the Court ha,•ing (1) [1962] 2 S,C,R. IOI. L. N. Muklt1rjr• St till of M odrtis Raghuba" Doyol j. April ao. [1962] jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy can also try offences committed in pursuance of that conspiracy even if those offences were committed out • side the jurisdiction of th st Court, ss the provisions of s. 239, Criminal Procedure Code, sre not controlled by the provisions of s. 177, Criminal Procedure Code, which do not crestP a.n absolute prohibition against the trial of offences by s Court other than the one within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed.

On s parity of reasoning, the Court having jurisdiction to try the offences committ~d in pursuance of the conspiracy, ca.n try the offence of conspiracy even if it we.a committed outside its jurisdiction. We therefore hold that the ordn under appeal is correct snd, accordingly, dismiss this sppesl. Appeal dismissed. JAGANNATH AND OTHERS UNION OF INDIA (P. n. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, K. N. WANOJIOO, ICC. DAS GUP'l'A, snd N. RAJAOOPALA AYYANGAR JJ.) Excise Duty-Tobacco-Diffrrenl rates for 111llole leaf and broken leaf-If discriminatory-Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (/ of z944), First Schedule Entry 4(I) Items 5 and 6-COll· stitution of India, Art. 14. Item 5 of entry 4(1) of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, itnposes an excise duty of I{s. I-Io nP. per kilogram on tobacco other than flue cured and not actually used for the manufacture of cigarettes, smoking mixtures for pipes and cigarettrs or biris in the whole leaf form. Item 6 imposes a duty of Rs. 2-20 nP. per kilogram on tobacco in the broken leaf form.

The petitioners who dealt in tobacco in the broken leaf form contended that their tobacco could not be distinguished on any rational basis from the whole leaf form in Item 5 and the imposition of a double tariff on their !obacco was invalid as it was based on unconstitutional discrimination, the tariff being on the basis of use to which the tobacco was put.