))
Crime & Commerce Ft. Mohit Negi
Manage episode 329824241 series 3355479
Innhold levert av Gaurav Pathak. Alt podcastinnhold, inkludert episoder, grafikk og podcastbeskrivelser, lastes opp og leveres direkte av Gaurav Pathak eller deres podcastplattformpartner. Hvis du tror at noen bruker det opphavsrettsbeskyttede verket ditt uten din tillatelse, kan du følge prosessen skissert her https://no.player.fm/legal.
The transaction relating to goods took place in Gujarat, the representations and meeting took place in Gujarat, the goods were shipped from a port in Gujarat, bill of ladings were released from Gujarat, the invoices were raised by the entity based out of Gujarat and the jurisdiction of such invoices were subject to the court of Gujarat. But the FIR was registered in Delhi!
As per Section 177, CrPC, an inquiry and trial with respect of an offence is to be conducted by the court within whose local jurisdiction occurrence is said to have taken place, and the cause of action has arisen. Sections 178 and 179 are merely exceptions to the principle laid down in Section 177. Their scope should not be enlarged on analogous consideration. Ordinarily, the case is to be tried by the court in whose local limits the offence was committed, which in the present case is the state of Gujarat. In addition, for determination of offences alleged to have been committed under Section 406, IPC, Section 181, CrPC lays down that the jurisdiction lies with court where the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained.
Join is as we discuss this and lots more with Mohit Negi.
Ramesh Boghabhai Bhut v. State and Another
Crl.M.C. 1616/2020 & Crl.M.A. 10307/2020
2020 SCC OnLine Del 1475
Link to Judgment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1brwFF_SlpjMfnJZK9jnISO3i61JpT086/view?usp=sharing
https://www.instagram.com/lawandbehold/
--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/lawandbehold/message49 episoder
Del
