9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 1305 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking transfer of Criminal cases pending on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram, Haryana, to any competent Court in New Delhi - lack of territorial jurisdiction - cause of action - HELD THAT - Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 contains provisions relating to jurisdiction of criminal Courts in inquiries and trials. The Code maintains a distinction between (i) inquiry; (ii) investigation; and (iii) trial. The words inquiry and investigation are defined respectively in Clauses (g) and (h) of Section 2 of the Code. Apart from Sections 177 to 184, which lay down in elaborate detail, the Rules relating to jurisdiction, Chapter XIII of the Code also contains a few other sections. Section 185 empowers the State Government to order any case or class of cases committed for trial in any district, to be tried in any Sessions division. Section 186 empowers the High Court, in case where 2 or more courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question as to which of them should inquire into or try the offence has arisen, to decide the district where the inquiry or trial shall take place. Section 187 speaks of the powers of the Magistrate, in case where a person within his local jurisdiction, has committed an offence outside his jurisdiction, but the same cannot be inquired into or tried within such jurisdiction. Sections 188 and 189 deal with offences committed outside India. Clause (a) of Section 26 makes the provisions contained therein, subject to the other provisions of the Code. Therefore, a question arose before this Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sabir Ali 1964 (3) TMI 137 - SUPREME COURT as to whether a conviction and punishment handed over by a Magistrate of first class for an offence under the Uttar Pradesh Private Forest Act, 1948 were void, in the light of Section 15(2) of the Special Act. Section 15(2) of Uttar Pradesh Private Forest Act made the offences under the Act triable only by a Magistrate of second or third class. Though the entire trial in that case took place before a Magistrate of second class, he was conferred with the powers of a Magistrate of first class, before he pronounced the Judgment. This Court held that the proceedings were void Under Section 530(p) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (as it stood at that time). It is relevant to note that Section 461(l) of the Code of 1973 is in pari materia with Section 530(p) of the Code of 1898. What is now Clause (a) of Section 26 of the Code of 1973, is what was Section 28 of the Code of 1898. The only difference between the two is that Section 28 of the Code of 1898 referred to the eighth column of the second schedule, but Section 26(a) of the Code of 1973 refers to the first schedule - Similarly, Clause (b) of Section 26 of the Code of 1973 is nothing but what was Section 29 of the Code of 1898. It is possible to take a view that the words tries an offence are more appropriate than the words tries an offender in Section 461(l). This is because, lack of jurisdiction to try an offence cannot be cured by Section 462 and hence Section 461, logically, could have included the trial of an offence by a Magistrate, not empowered by law to do so, as one of the several items which make the proceedings void. In contrast, the trial of an offender by a court which does not have territorial jurisdiction, can be saved because of Section 462, provided there is no other bar for the court to try the said offender (such as in Section 27). But Section 461(l) makes the proceedings of a Magistrate void, if he tried an offender, when not empowered by law to do. The upshot of the discussion is (i) that the issue of jurisdiction of a court to try an offence or offender as well as the issue of territorial jurisdiction, depend upon facts established through evidence (ii) that if the issue is one of territorial jurisdiction, the same has to be decided with respect to the various Rules enunciated in Sections 177 to 184 of the Code and (iii) that these questions may have to be raised before the court trying the offence and such court is bound to consider the same. As seen from the pleadings, the type of jurisdictional issue, raised in the cases on hand, is one of territorial jurisdiction, atleast as of now. The answer to this depends upon facts to be established by evidence. The facts to be established by evidence, may relate either to the place of commission of the offence or to other things dealt with by Sections 177 to 184 of the Code. In such circumstances, this Court cannot order transfer, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, even before evidence is marshaled. Hence the transfer petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, transfer petitions are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Transfer of criminal cases due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. 2. Apprehension of bias in the trial court. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Transfer of Criminal Cases Due to Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction: The petitioner sought the transfer of three criminal cases from the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram, Haryana, to any competent court in New Delhi. The petitioner argued that no part of the cause of action arose in Gurugram, and the complaints were lodged there only because the de facto complainant wielded influence in Gurugram. The petitioner also claimed that the loans, which are the subject matter of the complaints, were sanctioned in different locations: Delhi, Indore, and Surat, and not in Gurugram. Therefore, the petitioner contended that the Gurugram court lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the cases. The court noted that the question of territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases revolves around several factors, including the place of commission of the offense, the place where the consequence of an act ensues, the place where the accused or victim was found, and the place where the property related to the offense was found or required to be returned. The court emphasized that these questions depend on facts established through evidence. The court referred to Sections 177 to 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which lay down the rules for determining the territorial jurisdiction of criminal courts. The court highlighted that the jurisdiction of a criminal court is normally related to the offense and, in some cases, to the offender. The court also mentioned that objections to territorial jurisdiction should be raised before the trial court, which is bound to consider them based on the evidence presented. The court concluded that it could not order the transfer of the cases on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction before evidence is marshaled. Therefore, the transfer petitions were dismissed, but the parties were allowed to raise the issue of territorial jurisdiction before the trial court and lead evidence on questions of fact. 2. Apprehension of Bias in the Trial Court: The petitioner initially argued that the de facto complainant wielded influence in Gurugram, which could prevent a fair trial. However, this ground was not pressed by the petitioner's counsel during the hearing, and the court did not need to address this issue further. Conclusion: The court dismissed the transfer petitions on the ground that the issue of territorial jurisdiction depends on facts to be established by evidence, which should be raised and decided before the trial court. The court allowed both parties to raise the issue of territorial jurisdiction and lead evidence on relevant questions of fact. There was no order as to costs.
|
