JUDGMENT Brij Mohan Lal, J. - This is an application in revision by two persons, viz. Nand Gopal Misir and Keshari Singh against an order of a Magistrate first class Ballia summoning them to stand their trial for offenses punishable under Sections 20 (B), -'165, 384 and 38fi, Indian Penal Code, No evidence has yet been recorded against the applicants, nor has any charge been framed The magistrate has so far done nothing against 'he applicants except issuing the summonses. It is the order issuing the summonses which is challenged. 2. It appears that one Rama Shanker, a resident of district Ballia, has Home business at Howrah- He had a servant by the name of Sudama He suspected him of having committed a theft. He dismiss A him and got a pronote of R3. 500/- executed by him. It is alleged that Sudama gob annoyed with Rama Shanker and wanted to avenge himself against the wrong which Rama Shanker was supposed to have done to him. It is the prosecution case that he contacted Kunwar Singh and Sarju Raut. On 15-8-1947 Rama" Shankar's son was at his ancestral houaa in the district of Ballia and hid gone out to see the celebrations in connection with the Independence Day. From there he did not return home. On l6-8-lfa4 Rama Shankar who Was at Howrah received a telephone trunk call from Banaras to the effect that Sudama and two servants of K' Jnwar 3. Singh bad been seen kidnapping the boy towards Calcutta. Rama Shankar lodged a report the sama day in the police station Gola Bari at Howrah and also met Kunwar Singh. The latter demanded a ransom of Ra. 25,000/- and advised Rima Shankar to see the present applicants-Rama Shankar mat them also but nothing was settled. Next day, there was again an interview between Rama Shankar on the one hand, the two applicants and some other persons on the other and it was settled that a ransom of Rs. 10,000/-would be paid A sum of Rs- 7,000/- was to be Paid before the delivery of the boy and the balance of Rs- 3,000/- was to be paid after the boy had been recovered-Rama Shankar took precaution of informing the S. P. also and the latter initialed 70 currency notes of Rs. 10,000/-would be paid A sum of Rs- 7,000/- was to be Paid before the delivery of the boy and the balance of Rs- 3,000/- was to be paid after the boy had been recovered-Rama Shankar took precaution of informing the S. P. also and the latter initialed 70 currency notes of Rs. 100/- each which were to be delivered to the applicants and their companions- These note3 were given at the applicants and their companions. On 28 8- 947 one Kesho Misir restored the boy to the members of his family in district Ballia. Ho was arrested then and there. 4. A complaint was filed by Rama Shankar against the two applicants and Kunwar Singh at Howrah on 25 8-1947 under Sections 334 and 420, Indian Penal Code. This complaint is still pending and as many as 26 witnesses have been examined so far. 5. The police authorities at Ballia also investigated the case and submitted a charge sheet on 8 0-1917 under Sections 3(33 and 120 (B) against Sudama Abir, his father, Ramdeo Ahir, Kesho Misir, Kunwar Singh, Gaya Prasad, Sarju Raut and Tirbe i Ahir. It may be pointed out that the preset it applicants were not included in the array of the accused against whom the charge sheet was submitted-Later of, the police authorities got the charge sheet amended and substituted the offence u/s 36 in place of Section 363, Indian Penal Code. 6. Two P. Ws. were examined on 2-9-19 L9 at Ballia- The third person to enter the witness-box was Rama Shankar. During the course of his examination the Public Prosecutor presented a petition praying that the present applicants be summoned to stand their trial for offences under Sections 120 (B) 365, 384 and 386. This application was allowed by the learned magistrate and summonses were issued to the applicants. It is this order of the magistrate which is sought to be revised-It may be pounded out at this stage that an application was made to the Howrah magistrate to stay the proceedings pending in court on the ground that a case was pending at Ballia also. The learned magistrate turned down that request and his order was upheld by the Sessions Judge of Howrah The matter was not pursued further and the Calcutta High Court was not approached with the request to stay the proceedings. 7. The learned magistrate turned down that request and his order was upheld by the Sessions Judge of Howrah The matter was not pursued further and the Calcutta High Court was not approached with the request to stay the proceedings. 7. It is contended that the charge of criminal conspiracy cannot be enquired into at Ballia, because the conspiracy was hatched at Howrah. It is true that had the charge been that of a criminal conspiracy simplicities the trial could have been held at Howrah only. But in the present case the charge of criminal conspiracy is grouped with charges for other offences all of which are said to have been committed in the course of the same transition. The learned counsel for the applicants, however, contends that notwithstanding the fact that the offence might have been committed during the course of the same transaction they cannot be tried to ether and in any case the charge of conspiracy cannot be tried at Ballia- He takes his stand out in re Dani A. I, R. 1936 Mad. 317 In that case a conspiracy was entered into at Bombay and certain acts of cheating were 'Re I pursuance of that conspiracy in Madras Presidency-It was held that the charge of conspiracy could not be tried in Madras Presidency. The relevant portion in the judgment runs as follows : - Conspiracy was complete when the parties entered into such an agreement; and does not depend on the subsequent act of cheating. As the allegation is that it was in Bombay, where the accused reside, that they entered into the con-spira0y, in charge should have been laid there. The lower Court cannot be clothed with jurisdiction to try the charge of conspiracy merely because the conspiracy and the different actg. of cheating might form part of the same -transaction, and that tha charges is respect of them might be tried together. It can have jurisdiction only in respect of the acts of cheating alleged to have been committed within its jurisdiction. 8. The view taken in the Madras Court is in conflict with the view taken in this Court in the case of Ram Das v. Emperor 1934 A.W.R. (PL C.) : A.I. R. All. It can have jurisdiction only in respect of the acts of cheating alleged to have been committed within its jurisdiction. 8. The view taken in the Madras Court is in conflict with the view taken in this Court in the case of Ram Das v. Emperor 1934 A.W.R. (PL C.) : A.I. R. All. 61 where it was held that ''Accused pi sins may be charged at one trial with the offence of conspiracy and also with the offence alleged to have been committed in pursuance of the conspiracy because the substantive offence of conspiracy and the offence committed in pursuance thereof form one and the same transaction." 9. The same view was taken in the Privy Council case reported in Babulal Chaukhani v. King Emperor 1938 A.W.R. (P.C.) : AIR P.C. 130 where their Lordships relied on Section 2 9 (d) of the Criminal Procedure Code and held that by reason of this provision of law the offence of a criminal conspiracy could be tried together with the offences which were committed in pursuance of that conspiracy. 10. It will thus appear that the above pronouncements are authorities for the proposition that the charges of the criminal conspiracy and of the offences committed as a result of the said conspiracy Can be tried together in one trial. But there still remains the question as to the place of trial. It is true that Section I'/D Cr. P. C. cannot be availed of by the prosecution is such a case. This Section contemplates a case where a person is accused of the commission of any offence by reason of anything which has been done and of any consequence which has ensued from such at. This section was interpreted in the case of Kashi Ram . Mehta v. Emperor 1934 A.W.R. (H.C.) : A L.J. 308, and it was held that it contemplates cases where the' act done and the consequence issuing therefrom together constitute the offence. If the offence is comp He in itself by the reason of the act having been done and the consequence is s mere result of it, which was not essential for the completion of the offence, then Section 1?9 would not apply In the circumstances, Section 179 Cr. P. C. is to be ignored, But Section 180 Cr. P. C. does apply to the facts of the present case. P. C. is to be ignored, But Section 180 Cr. P. C. does apply to the facts of the present case. This section says that: When an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which' is also an offence or which would be an offences if the doer were capable of committing an offence, a charge of the first-mentioned offense may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction either act was done. 11. He the conspiracy was an offence by reason of its relation to the other acts committed by the conspirator which were offences by themselves. Therefore, by reason of Section 180 Cr. P. 0. the offence of criminal conspiracy could be tried at the place where the other offence with which it was ^elated, viz, the offence of kidnapping could be tried. It will, therefore, follow that Ballia court had jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy also. In this view of the case law, I differ, with utmost respect, from the view taken in the Madras rise. I am of the opinion that the charge of the criminal conspiracy can be 'riled at Ballia. 12. As already stated above. Summonses only have been issued and no further proceedings have taken place against the applicants. No evidence whatsoever has been recorded and it is not known whether or not the magistrate will frame a charge u/s 120(B) or whether he would frame a charge- of abetment. The term "abetment" as defined in Section IQ7 I.P.C. includes a case of conspiracy provided are act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy. There area g"ner3lly three stages in a ease of conspiracy. In' the first stage several individuals independently of each other think of committing some offence. The second stage is reached when they agree among thpmselve3 to commit the offence. The third stage comes when some act or illegal commission is done to carry out that agreement. The first stage does not amount to an offence. The second stage amounts to an offence punishable u/s 120 (B) and the third stage comes within the definition of an abetment as contained under S 107 I. P.O. prior to the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (VIII) of 1913, the second stage also was not punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The second stage amounts to an offence punishable u/s 120 (B) and the third stage comes within the definition of an abetment as contained under S 107 I. P.O. prior to the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (VIII) of 1913, the second stage also was not punishable under the Indian Penal Code. It was, therefore, thought necessary to amend the law and enact a new section to mike such criminal conspiracy which had for its object the commission of an offence also an offence by itself. The present case is one in which the third stage is said to have been readied and it may be that the magistrate may rafter considering the evidence, consider it fit to frame a charge of abetment instead of a charge u/s 120 (B). If he frames a charge of abetment, Section 180 Cr. P. C. illustration (a) will become clearly applicable and there will be no room left for an argument to question the competence of the Bauia court to take cognizance of the case. It is not proper for me to indicate at this stage what should be to actual charge because it is not known what evidence will come against the applicants. It is advisable not to interfere in revision in this matter at this stage. 13. It is true that the applicants are in some what unfortunate position in so far as they are being called upon to face two prosecutions, one at Ballia and the other 8t Howrah. There is nothing in law to bar the trial of either of the two cases although it will be much desirable to stay one of the cases. It goes without saying that if one of the cases reaches the final stage and results in acquittal or conviction the other case shall automatically come to a close. 14. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that even if it be legal to continue the present proceedings it is not expedient to do so. I have given thought to the question as to which of the two cases should b^ stayed, if air. all. Had I come to the conclusion .that'-it was desirable to continue the Howraj case I would have stayed the Balu'a case. But the difficulty is that in the Howrah case there is no charge of conspiracy nor kidnapping. I have given thought to the question as to which of the two cases should b^ stayed, if air. all. Had I come to the conclusion .that'-it was desirable to continue the Howraj case I would have stayed the Balu'a case. But the difficulty is that in the Howrah case there is no charge of conspiracy nor kidnapping. In the circumstances, it is desirable to continue the Ballia case which deals with every offence said to have been committed in the entire transaction. The applicants may, if they are so advised, make another attempt to get the Howrah case stayed in view of the further developments that have taken place since they made their last attempt to get the hearing of that case stayed. 15. For the reasons stated above, I see no reason to interfere in Revision. The application is rejected.