CrPC Section 459
⚖️ Section 459 CrPC – Proof of Person Offending in Place with Local Jurisdiction
📜 Text of Section 459:
"Proof of the person offending in place with local jurisdiction.
In all cases where a criminal court is competent to take cognizance of an offence and has jurisdiction of the offence but not of the place in which it is committed, proof that the offence was committed by the accused in the local area within the jurisdiction of such court shall be sufficient to justify the court in proceeding with the trial."
✅ Explanation in Simple Terms:
🔍 What Section 459 Means:
Sometimes a criminal court has the power to try a particular offence (i.e., it has jurisdiction over the offence) but does not have territorial jurisdiction over the place where the offence actually happened.
Section 459 allows such a court to still conduct the trial and pass judgment, if it can be proved that the accused committed the offence within the local area over which the court has jurisdiction.
In other words, proof that the accused committed the offence within the court’s local area is enough to proceed, even if the offence technically occurred elsewhere.
🔹 Key Points:
Court must have jurisdiction over the offence:
The court must be competent to hear and try the specific offence.
Court may lack jurisdiction over the place where offence was committed:
The offence might have taken place outside the court’s local territorial limits.
Proof that the offence was committed in the court’s local area:
The prosecution must establish that the accused actually committed the offence within the area over which the court has territorial jurisdiction.
If proved, the court can proceed with trial:
Even if the official location of the offence is outside the court’s jurisdiction, the court can still try the accused if the offence happened inside its territory.
🧠 Purpose of Section 459:
To avoid procedural hurdles caused by strict territorial jurisdiction.
To enable courts to proceed with cases where it is clear the offence was committed within their territorial limits.
To promote flexibility and avoid injustice due to technical territorial objections.
📝 Illustration:
Suppose:
A court in District A has jurisdiction over theft offences.
The theft is alleged to have occurred near the border of District A and District B.
Officially, the offence is said to be committed in District B, where the court has no territorial jurisdiction.
However, evidence shows the accused actually committed the theft in District A, which is within the court’s jurisdiction.
➡️ The court in District A can proceed with the trial based on proof under Section 459.
📌 Important Notes:
This section does not give jurisdiction where there is none; it applies when the court already has jurisdiction over the offence but not over the place.
It helps in situations where the exact place of the offence is ambiguous or overlaps boundaries.
The onus is on the prosecution to prove the offence took place within the court’s local area.
🔗 Related Sections:
Section 177 to 189 CrPC: Territorial jurisdiction of courts.
Section 178 CrPC: Place of trial when offence is committed in a different district.
Section 462 CrPC: Errors in trial in wrong place and effect thereof.
✅ Summary Table:
| Element | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Court jurisdiction over offence | Court must have legal authority to try the offence. |
| Lack of jurisdiction over place | Court may not have jurisdiction over place where offence occurred. |
| Proof required | Offence must be proved to have occurred within the court’s territorial limits. |
| Effect | Court can try the accused despite initial lack of territorial jurisdiction. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments