Where Accused Conceded Jurisdiction And Trial Completed, Question Of Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Raised:...
⚖️ Jurisdictional Objection After Trial Completion Is Not Sustainable
Principle: Accused who submits to jurisdiction and allows trial to conclude cannot later object to territorial jurisdiction.
🔹 Legal Context
In criminal trials, territorial jurisdiction determines which court has the authority to try the case based on where the offence was committed (Sections 177–179 CrPC). However, this right is not absolute, and can be waived if the accused does not object in time.
🔹 Relevant Provisions of CrPC
Section 177: Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
Section 462 CrPC: No finding, sentence, or order shall be invalid merely because it was passed by a court not having territorial jurisdiction, unless failure of justice has in fact been occasioned.
🔹 Key Legal Principle
Territorial jurisdiction must be challenged at the earliest possible stage, preferably before trial begins.
If the accused participates in trial without objection, he is deemed to have waived the right to challenge jurisdiction later.
Raising this objection after conviction or at the appellate stage is considered an abuse of process.
🔹 Key Case Laws
⚖️ Banwari Lal Jhunjhunwala v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1620
Held that objections to jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest.
Once trial has proceeded to conviction, and no prejudice is shown, conviction cannot be invalidated on jurisdictional grounds.
⚖️ Ramanathan Sethuraman v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 1 SCC 574
The Supreme Court emphasized that territorial jurisdiction is not a bar to trial unless objection is raised early and prejudice is proved.
After full participation in trial, jurisdictional objection is deemed waived.
⚖️ State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, (2005) 3 SCC 752
Reiterated that technical objections must not defeat substantive justice.
Territorial error without prejudice is not fatal to the proceeding.
⚖️ H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196
Held: procedural errors that do not cause "failure of justice" do not vitiate the trial.
⚖️ K. Anbazhagan v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 6 SCC 86
The court stated that challenge to jurisdiction must be raised before charges are framed.
Participation in trial without objection is implied waiver.
🔹 Summary Table
| Issue | Legal Position |
|---|---|
| Territorial jurisdiction | Must be challenged early (preferably before charges are framed) |
| Participation without objection | Deemed waiver of right to challenge jurisdiction |
| Post-trial objection | Unsustainable unless actual failure of justice is demonstrated |
| Section 462 CrPC | Protects trial outcome unless error caused prejudice to accused |
| Accused’s concession | If accused concedes or does not contest jurisdiction, court's authority stands |
🔹 Practical Application
Suppose a trial is held in Mumbai, but the alleged offence occurred in Pune. If the accused does not raise any objection and proceeds through the trial, he cannot later claim that Mumbai had no jurisdiction, especially after conviction.
Only if the accused can prove that the wrong jurisdiction caused a miscarriage of justice (e.g., denial of fair trial, unavailability of key witnesses), the trial may be invalidated.
🔹 Conclusion
“Procedural objections, including those on territorial jurisdiction, must not be allowed to derail justice unless prejudice is clear and proven.”
Courts focus on substance over technicalities.
If an accused does not timely object to territorial jurisdiction and participates in the trial, he is deemed to have waived his right to raise such objection later.
The goal is to prevent tactical abuse of procedural rules to escape conviction.
RELATED Blog
0 comments