Madras High CourtT. Kakrullakhan And Ors. vs Unknown on 4 February, 1935Equivalent citations: (1935)68MLJ415ORDER1. It is agreed before us by both sides that under the terms ofSection 188of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it stands since the amendment of 1923 a Court in British India cannot try an offence by virtue of the terms ofSection 179of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely because part of the consequences have ensued within its jurisdiction if some part of the offence has been committed in a Native State. The Section renders the certificate of the Political Agent (in the present case, the Resident in Mysore) necessary even in such cases. We think that for this reason not only the charges of forgery (Sections 467and468of the Indian Penal Code) but also those of cheating (Sections 410and420of the Indian Penal Code) are not triable in the Chittoor District without such a certificate because some part of the cheating as well as the whole of the forgery was committed within the Mysore State. We must therefore quash the commitment in S.C. No. 36 of 1934 on the file of the Court of Session of the Chittoor Division on each and every charge preferred against the three accused.