Problems

1. 'A' is travelling from Madras to Bengaluru by train. During the night his suitcase is
stolen. The theft was discovered at Hubballi. 'B' is caught with the stolen suitcase at
Davangere. Where can 'B' be tried for theft? Decide X2

177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.—Every offence shall ordinarily be

inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed.

2. 'A' first-class magistrate convicts 'X' on his plea of guilty. 'X' desires to appeal against
the conviction. Decide

Ans: No A cannot make an appeal.

Sec.375: No appeal when the accused pleads guilty
a. if the conviction is by a High Court; or
b. if the conviction is by a Court of Session, Metropolitan Magistrate or
Magistrate of the first or second class, except as to the extent or legality of the
sentence.

Section 375 of Cr. P.C. provides no appeal and shall lie when the accused
pleads guilty. According to this section where an accused person has pleaded
guilty and has been convicted on the such plea, there shall be no appeal if the
conviction is by a High Court or if the conviction is by a Court of Session,
Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of the first or second class, except as to
the extent or legality of the sentence.
The section is based on the principle that a plea of guilty by an accused
person operates as a waiver of the right to question the legality or his
conviction on such a plea. But before applying the bar provided in this section
against a convicted person, it must be ascertained that the plea of his guilt has
not been obtained by trickery, and that it is a genuine plea. It must be stated
that a person when pleading guilty, does not commit himself to accept the
punishment that would be passed against him irrespective of its nature and
legality. Therefore, there is no reason to deny him the right to challenge the
extent or legality of the sentence by way of appeal. However, this section
denies the accused who has pleaded guilty right to appeal in cases conviction
is by a High Court or if the conviction is by a Court of Session, Metropolitan
Magistrate or Magistrate of the first or second class.In the given problem a
first-class magistrate convicts „X‟ on his plea of guilty. So “X‟ cannot prefer
an appeal against the conviction except as to the extent or legality of the
sentence.

3. A Police Officer has recorded information regarding a cognizable offence in his Police
Station diary on the basis of a phone call. Can it be regarded as an FIR? Decide X4

● Tehal Singh v. State of Rajasthan Case

● Sukharam vs. the State of Maharashtra, it was held that it is not important for
the informer to be present personally before the police for registration of an
FIR.
It can be recorded by telephone or even through email provided that the facts
of the case are not ambiguous and hence it can be treated as an FIR.
● Sec 154 Crpc and Essential of FIR

4. A and B have jointly committed decoity at Maharashtra and Karnataka in a span of

one year. They were arrested in Mumbai. Can they be tried jointly for offences in the
Mumbai Court - Decide.
223. What persons may be charged jointly. They can be tried Jointly

5. A is accused of an offence. The court has altered the charge without explaining it to
him. A is convicted for the said offence. Is the said conviction valid? Decide.

Doesn't talk about the validity of the conviction

Sec 216 - Alter of charge requires (2) Every such alteration or addition shall be
read and explained to the accused.

6. A Magistrate directs 'B' to execute a bond for maintaining good behaviour for a
period of two years. Discuss the validity of the order.

Order valid.

117. Order to give security.—If, upon such inquiry, it is proved that it is

necessary for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour, as the case
may be, that the person in respect of whom the inquiry is made should execute
a bond, with or without sureties, the Magistrate shall make an order
accordingly.

7. 'A' dishonestly uses a forged document as genuine evidence, in order to convict 'B' a
public servant, of an offence u/s-167 of lPC. Two offences were included in one
charge and were tried together in a single trial by the magistrate and were convicted.
Decide the validity of the order

Under Section 2(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), "Magistrate" means any
person exercising all or any of the powers of a Magistrate under this Code. Therefore, a
Magistrate would have the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter and proceed
with the case if the father has filed a complaint before him.

In addition, Section 145 of the CrPC provides for the procedure to be followed by a
Magistrate in cases where a dispute concerning immovable property is likely to cause a
breach of peace. If the Magistrate is satisfied that there is a likelihood of a breach of
peace, he may initiate proceedings under this section and pass an order for maintaining
 peace and prohibiting any party from disturbing possession until a competent court has
determined the rights of the parties over the disputed property.

Therefore, in this case, the father may file a complaint before the Magistrate for
wrongful dispossession or illegal eviction, and the Magistrate would have the
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter and initiate proceedings under Section 145
of the CrPC if he deems it necessary to maintain peace and order.

8. A court took cognizance of an offence of murder 50 years after the date of the
alleged murder. Accused pleads that this is barred by limitation. Decide.

CrPC provides for the limitation period for certain offences, but murder is not
one of them. Under Section 468 of the CrPC, the period of limitation for taking
cognizance of offences varies depending on the nature of the offence, and
ranges from 3 years to as long as the lifetime of the victim in certain cases.
However, Section 473 of the CrPC allows for the limitation period to be
extended or excluded in certain circumstances, such as when the accused is
absconding or concealing themselves, when the offence is a continuing one,
or when the offence is discovered later. In cases where the accused is not in
India or is absconding, the limitation period can be extended up to 30 years.
It is important to note that the absence of a limitation period for murder in India
reflects the serious nature of the offence, and the importance of holding those
responsible accountable for their actions, regardless of how much time has
passed since the crime was committed.

However, there might be lot of loopholes in prosecution case as elapse of 50

years. They can take cognizance

9. A is charged with the offence of theft. A pleads guilty. Court convicts A. Can A file an
appeal?

No appeal can be filed

375. No appeal in certain cases when the accused pleads

guilty.—Notwithstanding anything contained in section 374, where an accused
person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on the such plea, there shall
be no appeal,— (a) if the conviction is by a High Court; or (b) if the conviction
is by a Court of Session, Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of the first or
second class, except as to the extent or legality of the sentence.

10. 'A' is accused of theft on one occasion and of causing grievous hurt on another
occasion. Two offences were included in one charge and were tried together in a
single trial by the magistrate and convicted. Decide the validity of the order.

Not valid
 218. Separate charges for distinct offences.—(1) For every distinct offence of
which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such
charge shall be tried separately:

A is accused of theft on one occasion, and of causing grievous hurt on another

occasion. A must be separately charged and separately tried for the theft and
causing grievous hurt.

11. 'C' was wounded in Mysore when he was attacked by 'D'. Later 'C' dies of those
wounds in Bangalore. Can this offence be tried in Bangalore? Give reasons.

D cannot be tried in Bangalore

300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.—(1)
A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an
offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction
or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same
offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different
charge from the one made against him might have been made under
sub-section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted
under sub-section (2) thereof.
A is charged before the Court of Session and convicted of the culpable
homicide of B. A may not afterwards be tried on the same facts for the murder
of B.

12. 'P' is charged before the court of session and convicted of the culpable homicide of
T. Can 'P' afterwards be tried on the same facts for the murder of 'T'? Give reasons.
Yes. 220: Trial for more than one offence: This section provides another
exception to the general rule regarding the joinder of charges as laid down in
section 218 of the code. The section applies to cases in which different
offences are part of one transaction. If offences are committed in the cause of
the same transaction they may be tried together, although they are more than
three in number and exceeding over a span of more than a year. Even if defined
under two or more separate definitions.

13. More than two years ago 'A' was sentenced to death but the sentence has not been
executed so far. 'A' moves to the court that his death sentence be commuted to
imprisonment for life as there was under delay in the execution of the death
sentence, Decide.
A commutation can happen through a pardon or clemency granted by the
executive authority, or through a judicial order. Delay is a essential factor that
has be seen on a case to case basis.
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, a three-judge bench of the Indian
Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment on the death penalty: holding,
in particular, that an excessive delay in carrying out the death sentence was an
essential mitigating factor in a plea for commutation.
14. 'A' commits an offence in 'Agra' but makes a confession before the Judicial
Magistrate at 'Lucknow', who has no power to try the case, but he did not sign the
confessional statement recorded by the magistrate. Is confession valid? Decide.

Under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a Judicial

Magistrate may record a confession only if the offense has been committed
within his jurisdiction, or if the person making the confession is forwarded to
him by a Magistrate having jurisdiction. In this case, since the offense was
committed in Agra, the Judicial Magistrate at Lucknow would have no
jurisdiction to record the confession.
Furthermore, as per Section 364 of the CrPC, a confession made before a
person who is not authorized to record it is not admissible as evidence, even if
it is reduced to writing and signed by the accused.

In this case, although 'A' made a confession before the Judicial Magistrate at
Lucknow, since the Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to try the case, the
confession would not be admissible as evidence in the trial. The fact that 'A'
did not sign the confessional statement recorded by the Magistrate is
immaterial, as the very act of recording the confession was invalid due to lack
of jurisdiction.

Therefore, the confession made by 'A' before the Judicial Magistrate at

Lucknow would not be considered valid as evidence in the trial of the offense
committed in Agra.

15. ‘A’ an accused is produced before the Magistrate after the expiry of 24 hours of his
arrest. He seeks his release on the ground that production of him before the
Magistrate after 24 hours of his arrest rendered the custody illegal. Decide. Ans.

Section 57 of Criminal Procedure Code1973 deals with the person arrested not
to be detained for more than twenty-four hours. No police officer shall detain in
custody a person arrested without a warrant for a longer period than under all
the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the
absence of a special order of a Magistrate under Section 167, exceed
twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the
place of arrest to the Magistrate‟s Court.
In the case of Sharifbai v. Abdul Rajak, AIR 1961 Bombay 42, it was held that
where a police officer fails to produce an arrested person before a Magistrate
within 24 hours of the arrest, he shall be held guilty of the offence of wrongful
detention. In the said problem, the accused was produced before the
magistrate after 24 hours of his arrest and he seeks his release on the ground
that production of him before the magistrate after 24 hours of his arrest
rendered the custody illegal. He has a fundamental right under Indian
Constitution as well and According to Article 22(2) of the Indian Constitution
every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before
the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest
excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the
court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody
 beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate. So he can seek
his release on the ground that production of him before the Magistrate after 24
hours of his arrest rendered the custody illegal.

16. Without the order of the higher authorities, the officer of the armed force fires on the
members of unlawful assembly and caused the death of 'D'. Now the dependent of
the deceased wants to claim compensation. Advise him.

17. A is the husband of B. A takes holy order. B desires to claim maintenance from A.
Can B claim maintenance?

18. 'A' is an accused who was charged under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act for
possessing a revolver without I licence and was acquitted as the prosecution could
not prove that he was in possession of the revolver. ln a subsequent trial of the
accused on the charge of Murder. Whether can the prosecution be permitted to prove
possession of a revolver and murder case against 'A'? Decide.

19. 'X' a renowned film actress wants to file a complaint against an actor relating to
alleged sexual harassment three years (3 years) after the film shooting happened
whether she can file a complaint now. Advise her.

20. 'P' makes an application for regular bail in the court of session. The application is
rejected. Now he wants to make a fresh application for anticipatory bail u/s. 438
Cr.P.C. in the High Court. Advise him.

21. 'A' a Marathi-speaking accused is tried at Belgaum Court. All witnesses were
deposed in Kannada. 'A' wants the same to be interpreted to him in Marathi. The
court rejects his prayer. Decide.

22. 'A' misappropriates money from a company in Bangalore and runs away. The police
get the information that he is in Sri Lanka. The Executive Magistrate issues a warrant
to arrest him under Sec. 72 (1) of Cr.P.C. Whether this warrant can be executed?
Giue reasons.