AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 199 wordsIt is agreed before us by both sides that under the terms of Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it stands since the amendment of
1923 a Court in British India cannot try an offence by virtue of the terms of Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely because part of
the consequences have ensued within its jurisdiction if some part of the offence has been committed in a Native State. The Section renders the
certificate of the Political Agent (in the present case, the Resident in Mysore) necessary even in such cases. We think that for this reason not only
the charges of forgery (Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code) but also those of cheating (Sections 410 and 420 of the Indian Penal
Code) are not triable in the Chittoor District without such a certificate because some part of the cheating as well as the whole of the forgery was
committed within the Mysore State. We must therefore quash the commitment in S.C. No. 36 of 1934 on the file of the Court of Session of the
Chittoor Division on each and every charge preferred against the three accused.