A. CASE-LAW ENRICHED MAINS ANSWERS (CRIMINAL JURISDICTION)
Q1. Explain the general rule of criminal jurisdiction with the aid of case law.
Model Answer (with case law)
Introduction:
The foundation of criminal jurisdiction is territoriality. The court within whose local limits the offence is committed is ordinarily competent to try the offence.
Statutory Provision:
Section 199 BNSS embodies this principle by providing that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
Case Law:
In Naresh Kavarchand Khatri v. State of Gujarat (2008) 8 SCC 300, the Supreme Court held that criminal jurisdiction is determined primarily by the place where the offence is committed and not by the residence of the accused or the complainant.
Rationale:
Criminal law addresses public wrongs; therefore, the locus delicti (place of crime) governs jurisdiction.
Conclusion:
Section 199 BNSS codifies a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence, subject to statutory exceptions.
Q2. Discuss jurisdiction in continuing offences with judicial interpretation.
Model Answer
Statutory Provision:
Section 200 BNSS provides that where an offence is committed in more than one local area or is a continuing offence, it may be tried by any court having jurisdiction over any of such areas.
Case Law:
In State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi (1972) 2 SCC 890, the Supreme Court explained that a continuing offence is one which continues from day to day and gives rise to a fresh cause of action.
Application:
Offences like kidnapping with continued confinement or criminal breach of trust fall within this category.
Conclusion:
Section 200 BNSS ensures flexibility and prevents offenders from escaping liability due to territorial technicalities.
Q3. Explain consequence-based jurisdiction with the help of case law.
Model Answer
Statutory Provision:
Section 201 BNSS provides that where an act is done in one place and its consequence ensues in another, courts at either place have jurisdiction.
Case Law:
In Bhura Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2008) 11 SCC 103, the Supreme Court held that the court where the consequence of the offence ensued has jurisdiction to try the offence.
Significance:
This principle is crucial in cyber crimes, economic offences, and cross-border crimes.
Conclusion:
Section 201 BNSS strengthens victim access to justice by recognising the place of impact as a valid jurisdiction.
Q4. Does lack of territorial jurisdiction vitiate a criminal trial? Discuss with case law.
Model Answer
Legal Position:
Lack of territorial jurisdiction does not automatically vitiate criminal proceedings.
Case Law:
In Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1955 SCR 117), the Supreme Court held that an objection to jurisdiction is material only if it results in failure of justice.
Application under BNSS:
If the accused does not raise objection at the earliest stage and no prejudice is caused, the trial remains valid.
Conclusion:
Territorial jurisdiction is procedural and curable unless it causes failure of justice.