Summarize the following court judgment. iminal Appeal No. 119 of 1960. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 14	 1960	 of the Madras High Court in Cr. Petition No. 246 of 1960	 D. N. Mukherjee	 for the appellant. M. section K. Sastri and T. M. Sen	 for respondent. April 19. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL		 J. This appeal	 by special leave	 is against the order of the Madras High Court dismissing the application for quashing the commitment of the case against the appellant	 to the Court of Session	 for trial of offences of criminal conspiracy to cheat under section 120 B read with section 420	 Indian Penal Code	 and for the offence of forgery committed in pursuance of that conspiracy. The criminal conspiracy is alleged to have been committed at Calcutta. The other offences in pursuance of the conspiracy are alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the Court of Session at Madras. The quashing of. the commitment was sought on the ground that	 the Courts at Madras had no jurisdiction to try the offence of conspiracy. The High Court did not accept the contention and dismissed the application. The sole question for consideration in this appeal is whether the offence of conspiracy alleged to have been committed at Calcutta can be tried by the Court of Session at Madras. We have held this day	 in Purushottamdas Dalmia vs The State of West Bengal (1) that the Court having (1) [1962] 2S.C.R. 101. 118 jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy can also try offences committed in pursuance of that conspiracy even if those offences were committed outside the jurisdiction of that Court	 as the provisions of section 239	 Criminal Procedure Code	 are not controlled by the provisions of section 177	 Criminal Procedure Code	which do not create an absolute prohibition against the trial of offences by a Court other than the one within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed. On a parity of reasoning	 the Court having jurisdiction to try the offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy	 can try the offence of con	 	piracy even if it was committed outside its jurisdiction. We therefore hold that the order under appeal is correct and	 accordingly	 dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed.

The appellant was committed to the Court of Session at Madras for trial under section 120 B read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and for committing the offence of forgery in pursuance of that conspiracy. The Criminal conspiracy was alleged to have been committed at Calcutta	 while the other offences in 117 pursuance thereof were committed at Madras. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that the Madras Court had no jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy. Held	 that the court having the jurisdiction to try the offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy	 has also the jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy	 even though it was committed. outside its territorial jurisdiction. Purushottamdas Dalmia vs State of wesst Bengal; 	 	 applied.