The Sessions Judge vs Sundra Singh

Abdur Rahim, J.—What happened in this case was that a dacoity was committed in British territory, and the accused, a native Indian

subject of His Majesty, was found in possession of property alleged to have been stolen at that dacoity, in the Pudukottah State. He is charged

with an offence u/s 412, Indian Penal Code. Section 180, Criminal Procedure Code, no doubt makes an offence such as that u/s 412, Indian Penal

Code, triable at the place where the property is retained or where the theft or dacoity took place.

But then Section 188, Criminal Procedure Code, enacts that if an offence is committed by a native Indian subject of His Majesty in the territory

of a Native State - and that is the case here - he can be tried for such offence in a court in British India, only if the Political Agent of the State

certifies that the charge ought to be tried in British India. There can be no doubt that the general provisions of Section 180, Cr.P.C. are governed

by Section 188, Cr.P.C. No such certificate has been obtained in this case. I therefore quash the commitment as recommended by the Sessions

Judge.