Section 19 — Offenses spanning several localities
Statutory text (Thai original)
ในกรณีดังต่อไปนี้
(๑) เป็นการไม่แน่ว่าการกระทำผิดอาญาได้กระทำในท้องที่ใดในระหว่างหลายท้องที่
(๒) เมื่อความผิดส่วนหนึ่งกระทำในท้องที่หนึ่ง แต่อีกส่วนหนึ่งในอีกท้องที่หนึ่ง
(๓) เมื่อความผิดนั้นเป็นความผิดต่อเนื่องและกระทำต่อเนื่องกันในท้องที่ต่าง ๆ เกินกว่าท้องที่หนึ่งขึ้นไป
(๔) เมื่อเป็นความผิดซึ่งมีหลายกรรม กระทำลงในท้องที่ต่าง ๆ กัน
(๕) เมื่อความผิดเกิดขึ้นขณะผู้ต้องหากำลังเดินทาง
(๖) เมื่อความผิดเกิดขึ้นขณะผู้เสียหายกำลังเดินทางพนักงานสอบสวนในท้องที่หนึ่งท้องที่ใดที่เกี่ยวข้องมีอำนาจสอบสวนได้ในกรณีข้างต้นพนักงานสอบสวนต่อไปนี้ เป็นผู้รับผิดชอบในการสอบสวน(ก) ถ้าจับผู้ต้องหาได้แล้ว คือพนักงานสอบสวนซึ่งท้องที่ที่จับได้อยู่ในเขตอำนาจ(ข) ถ้าจับผู้ต้องหายังไม่ได้ คือพนักงานสอบสวนซึ่งท้องที่ที่พบการกระทำผิดก่อนอยู่ในเขตอำนาจ
English translation
In the following cases: (1) where it is uncertain in which of several localities the criminal offense was committed; (2) where part of the offense was committed in one locality and another part in another locality; (3) where the offense is a continuing offense committed continuously across various localities exceeding one locality; (4) where the offense consists of several acts committed in different localities; (5) where the offense occurred while the alleged offender was travelling; (6) where the offense occurred while the injured person was travelling; the inquiry official in any one of the localities concerned shall have the power to conduct the inquiry. In the above cases, the following inquiry official shall be responsible for the inquiry: (a) if the alleged offender has already been arrested, the inquiry official within whose jurisdiction the arrest was made; (b) if the alleged offender has not yet been arrested, the inquiry official within whose jurisdiction the commission of the offense was first discovered.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 19 addresses the practical problem of offenses that do not sit neatly in one place. It lists six situations, from uncertainty about where the act occurred to continuing offenses, multiple acts, and crimes committed while the offender or the victim is travelling, and in all of them any concerned locality's inquiry official may investigate. It then supplies a tie-breaker for who is responsible: paragraph (a) points to the place of arrest once the accused is caught, and paragraph (b) points to the place where the offense was first discovered if the accused is still at large. The section works closely with Section 18 as an exception to the single-locality default, and its labels, such as a continuing offense under (3) or several acts under (4), often decide which station's inquiry is valid.
Why this matters in practice
This section is frequently litigated because it decides whether the investigating station had authority at all. If facts do not actually fit any of the six categories, for example a single act wholly within one area, then the ordinary Section 18 rule applies and an inquiry by another locality can be unlawful, defeating the prosecutor's power to prosecute. Conversely, a genuine continuing or multi-locality offense gives several stations a valid choice. Because the classification is fact-sensitive, a licensed Thai lawyer should map the acts to the categories before conceding or challenging jurisdiction.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 345/2568 (2025)
Where the offense is a single act committed in one sub-district and is not connected or continuing across several localities, Section 19(3) and (4) do not apply, and only the inquiry official of the place where the offense occurred has authority; an inquiry by another station is unlawful.
The charge described a single offense committed in one sub-district, with no allegation of connection to acts elsewhere. The Court held the conduct was neither connected nor continuing across localities under Section 19(3) and (4), so only the local station had authority and the inquiry by the neighboring station was unlawful.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1599/2563 (2020)
Where part of the offense was committed in one locality and part in another as a continuing offense across localities under Section 19(2) and (3), the inquiry official of the place where the accused was arrested is the responsible official; this is distinct from the wholly extraterritorial case under Section 20.
The Court held the conduct was a connected, continuing offense across localities under Section 19(2) and (3), so the station where the accused surrendered and was taken under the arrest warrant was the responsible inquiry official. It was not the wholly extraterritorial situation that would place responsibility with the Attorney General under Section 20.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1691/2561 (2018)
Where it is uncertain in which locality the offense was committed under Section 19(1), for example a false report in one district and false testimony in another, an inquiry official of a concerned locality has authority.
The accused made a false report to police in one district and later gave false testimony to a court in another. The Court treated this as a case where it was uncertain in which locality the offense was committed under Section 19(1), giving a concerned locality's inquiry official authority to investigate.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Which police station investigates a crime committed across several districts?
Under Section 19, when an offense spans several localities, the inquiry official of any concerned locality may investigate. Responsibility rests with the place of arrest if the accused is caught, otherwise with the place where the offense was first discovered.
Does Section 19 apply to a single act committed in one place?
No. If the offense is a single act wholly within one locality and not continuing or connected across areas, Section 19 does not apply and the ordinary Section 18 rule governs which station has jurisdiction.