Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues
Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues. When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.
Section 179, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 199 Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The question of territorial jurisdiction in criminal proceedings is a question of fact that must be established through evidence and cannot be decided at the transfer petition stage. The trial court, not the Supreme Court, is the appropriate forum to decide jurisdictional issues after evidence is led on the place of commission of the offence and other relevant factors enumerated in Sections 177 to 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, transfer petitions seeking transfer on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction must be dismissed, leaving it open to the parties to raise and have the trial court decide the jurisdictional issue during the trial.
On this section: Where something is an offence by reason of the act done as well as the consequence that ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction either the act was done or the consequence ensued.
-
Mahesh Maheshwari vs C.b.i.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act involves receipt of illegal gratification and the receipt occurs in a different jurisdiction from where the money originated, the jurisdiction for trial is determined by the place where the receipt and related substantive transactions occurred, not merely the place of origin of funds. Under CrPC Section 179, when an act is an offence by reason of both something done and a consequence ensued, the offence may be tried by a court within whose jurisdiction either the act was done or the consequence ensued. In cases involving criminal conspiracy spanning multiple jurisdictions with substantive offences occurring in multiple places, each set of offences may constitute main offences, and the court having jurisdiction over any of such places may try the case. At the charge framing stage, the court need only determine whether a prima facie case has been made out based on materials on record; detailed appreciation of evidence is reserved for the trial stage.
On this section: Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues; when act is offence by reason of something done and consequence ensued, offence may be tried by court within whose jurisdiction such thing was done or consequence ensued; court applied this to hold Delhi has jurisdiction as consequence (receipt of money) ensued in Delhi
-
Homi Rajvansh vs Director of C.b.i.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an offence of cheating is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or consists of several acts done in different local areas, and a major part of the cause of action arises in one jurisdiction where the principal accused is based and received the funds, the investigating agency has territorial jurisdiction to investigate the case in that jurisdiction. The High Court should not interfere with an investigation at its initial stage unless it is convinced that the investigating agency has acted malafidely. The mere fact that some part of the transaction occurred in another jurisdiction does not divest the investigating agency of its jurisdiction to investigate where the principal accused is located and the funds were received and misappropriated.
On this section: When act done at one place and consequence ensues at another place, offence can be inquired into or tried by court having jurisdiction where act was done or consequence ensued
-
Xxx vs In Re- State of Assam
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a criminal offence is continuing in nature, initiated in one jurisdiction with consequences ensuing in that same jurisdiction, and parts of the offence (including the consequences) occur within that jurisdiction, the court having jurisdiction over that area where the offence was initiated and consequences ensued has the authority to conduct the trial, even if part of the criminal acts occurred in a different jurisdiction. This principle applies under Sections 178 and 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and the trial court need not be changed merely because some acts constituting the offence occurred in a different territorial jurisdiction.
On this section: Applied to determine jurisdiction when an act is an offence by reason of a consequence which has ensued. Court held that the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such consequence has ensued. Applied to the fact that consequences of the offence (pregnancy termination) occurred in Nalbari.
-
Vishwantaha Tantri vs The State of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where loans are sanctioned and disbursed from the head office of a financial institution located in Delhi, and the offence involves criminal misappropriation and breach of trust in relation to those loans, the Delhi court has territorial jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 181(4) CrPC, notwithstanding that the preliminary acts of verification and application submission occurred in another state. The place of receipt and disbursement of the property (money) is the relevant factor for determining jurisdiction in cases of criminal misappropriation and breach of trust, not merely the place where the initial fraudulent acts were committed.
On this section: Applies when act is an offence by reason of both the act done and consequence ensued; allows trial where either the act was done or consequence ensued; applied to determine jurisdiction based on where loss occurred
-
Ramesh Ajmani vs State of Uttarakhand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A party cannot raise a jurisdictional objection for the first time in a High Court application under Section 482 CrPC without having raised it before the trial court. Jurisdictional objections under Chapter XIII CrPC must be raised before the trial court at the appropriate stage, and only after exhausting remedies at the trial court level can such objections be raised in the High Court. The High Court will not exercise its discretionary power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings based on jurisdictional grounds that were not raised before the trial court.
On this section: Specific provisions dealing with offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues, place of trial for certain offences, offences committed by letters, offences on journey or voyage, and related jurisdictional matters
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 179
What have the courts held on Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana (30 Sep 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Where something is an offence by reason of the act done as well as the consequence that ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction either the act was done or the consequence ensued. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2007 to 2022.
How do I find court cases under Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 179, section 179 CRPC, section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana (30 Sep 2020).
What should I read with Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 199 (Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 179, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.