P L D 1956 Karachi 395 (PLP)

Conspiracy equally with abetment comes within the terms of section 180, Criminal P. C. The reason why section 120‑A, P P. C. was not inserted as an illustration to section 180 Criminal P. C. is that section 120, P. P. C. was enacted in 1913, while the illustrations to section 180, Criminal P. C. date as far back as 1882 and as such it was impossible to insert section 120‑A, P. P. C. in an illustration with the body of section 180, Criminal P. C. The two appellants in the present case were charged in the alternative either with conspiracy at K to murder N and with murdering N at S under sections 120‑B, P. P. C, and 302, P. P. C. or with murdering N under section 302, P. P. C. They were convicted by the Sessions judge at S in agreement with all the four assessors under section 120‑B, P. P. C. The counsel for the appellant contended that the Sessions Judge at S, had no jurisdiction to try the offence of conspiracy alleged to have been taken place at K. Held, the Sessions judge at S had jurisdiction to try the charge of conspiracy. Emperor v. Pursumal Gerimal and another A I R 1938 Sind 108 dissented from. H. T. Raymond for Appellant No.

1. Ihsanul Haq for Appellant No.

2. Inamullah, Public Prosecutor for the Crown. CONSTANTINE, C. J.‑This case is before us by way of appeal and for. confirmation of the death sentences imposed upon the two appellants. They were charged in the alternative either with conspiracy at Karachi to murder Nishanali and with murdering Nishanali in Nawabshah District near Bandhi Rail way Station under section 120‑B and section 302, Pakistan P, C., or with so murdering Nishanali under section 302, Pakistan P. C. They were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Nawabshah, in agreement with all four assessors, under the first head. Objection has been made by Mr. Raymond for the appel lant Jan Muhammad that the Sessions Judge, Nawabshah, had no jurisdiction to cry the offence of conspiracy alleged to have taken place in Karachi. He relied upon Emperor v. Pursumal Gerimal and another ((1938) A I R Sind 108). That decision, though entitled to great respect, is not binding on us, as it was pronounced by the then Court of the Judicial Commissioner. With great respect also we consider that this decision regarding sec tion 180, Criminal P. C. is wrong. Two points are made; the first is that section 120‑A constitutes a substantive offence, and the second point is that this offence is not mentioned in any of the illustrations to section

180. The first illustration, however, to section 180 mentions abetment, One of the forms of abetment is conspiracy, and it seems to us to make no difference that conspiracy by way of abetment requires an overt act, whereas conspiracy under section 120‑A to commit illegal act requires no overt act. Abetment is just as much a substantive offence as is conspiracy under section 120‑A. As to the second point, section 120‑A was enacted in 1913, while the illustrations to section 180, Criminal P. C. date as far back as 1882, and obviously, therefore when the illustrations were originally enacted together with the body of section 180, it was impossible to insert section 120‑A in an illustration. It seems to us clear that conspiracy equally with abetment comes within the terms of section

180. We therefore hold that the learned judge had jurisdiction to try the charge of conspiracy. K. B. A. Appeals dismissed.