Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

L. N. MUKHERJEE versus THE STATE OF MADRAS

Decided
19 April 1961
Judges listed
K. SUBBA RAO (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1962] 2 S.C.R. 116 · 1961 INSC 164
Also cited as
  • AIR 1961 SC 1601 (18 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 4 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

RAGRUBAR DAYAL, J.-This appeal, by special leave, is against the order of the Madras High Court 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 application.

p. 117, margin H

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.

p. 117, margin H

We have held t,his day, in Purushottamdas Dalmia v. The State of West Bengal(') that the Court ha,•ing 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.

pp. 117–118, margin H

Appeal dismissed. JAGANNATH AND OTHERS

p. 118

v.

p. 118

UNION OF INDIA (P. n. A. K. K. N. ICC. snd

p. 118

N. JJ.)

p. 118

Excise Duty-Tobacco-Diffrrenl rates for leaf and broken leaf-If discriminatory-Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (/ of z944), First Schedule Entry 4(I) Items 5 6-COll· stitution of India, Art. 14.

p. 118

Item 5 of entry 4(1) of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, itnposes an excise duty I{s. 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. 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 unconstitutional discrimination, the tariff being on the basis of use to which the tobacco was put.

p. 118