TMI Blog1994 (8) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0-2-1993, officers of Customs (Prevention) and officers of Customs and Central Excise, Indore raided the factory allegedly belonging to one Babulal Dhanraj Mohta situate- at village Delsor Dohad, District Panchmahal and recovered 90 silver bricks and 274 silver choreas packed in cloth bags, equipments for melting the silver, in absence of the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 17-6-1993 at Indore and admitted to bail by the High Court of Gujarat on 10-9-1993 in M. Cr. Case No. 3461/93 (Annexure 1). The criminal case has been filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Godhara. The linchpin of the case of the petitioner as contended is that the aforesaid Babulal Dhanraj Mohta, co-accused in the criminal case made statement under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. implicating the petitioner (Annexure 2). It seems that Babulal Mohta complaining of 3rd degree method, has lodged the criminal case No. 15/93 under Section 324 I.P.C. (Annexure P/7). The petitioner, before the Criminal Court, as noted above, has filed the application under Section 245(2) Cr. P.C. seeking quashment of the proceedings against him right at the stage of infancy on the grounds stated therein (Annex. 8). The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he powers are exercisable. At present, this position is indicated by Art. 226(2) of the Constitution of India. The counsel has urged that the powers under Art. 226 are much wider than those available under S. 438 Cr. P.C. and has placed reliance on 1982 Cr. LJ 61(Cal.) ; B.R. Sinha v. State; 1985 Cr. LJ 1316 (Kerala); C.T. Mathew v. Govt. of India Home Deptt. 1992 Cr. LJ 3442 (Kerala) T. Madhusoodan v. Supdt. of Police; 1984 Cr LJ 757 (Kant); Dr. L.R. Naidu v. State of Karnataka, 1989 Current Cri. Judgments 126 (MP); Narendra Kumar v. State of M.P.; 1976 Cr LJ 889 (Gujarat); Manjulaben v. C.T.A. Pillay; 1985 Cr. LJ 1754 (Patna) Madan Mohan Choudhari v. State of Bihar; and 1991 Cr LJ 950; Captain Satish Kumar Sharma v. Delhi Administration. He has particularly drawn my attention to para 23 of the Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Capt. Satish Kumar Sharma (Supra). The relevant portion is quoted below : Therefore, it cannot be disputed that since there is a threat of deprivation of liberty of the petitioner in the State of Delhi in connection with an offence alleged to have been committed in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the cause of action in p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. It is settled that writ petition lies for protection of personal liberty, (1990) 1 SCC 328; S.D.M. Kiran Pasha v. Govt. of A.P. is pertinant. 11. The order (Annexure R/1) is sought to be mortalised on the contention of its having been passed for a wrong purpose. However, in view of preliminary objection I restricted the counsel for the parties to submission about jurisdiction only and proposed to post the petition for hearing on this contention in case the preliminary objection was held to be non-meritorious. 12. I, therefore, proceed to examine the worth of rival contentions about territorial jurisdiction. 13. Art. 226(2) provides as under : (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any - Government, authority or person may also be exercised by High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. 14. The core question then is whether part of cause of action can be held to have arisen within the jurisdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case (supra). 18. Assuming that order (Annexure R/1) may be executed at Indore, yet, in my view, that act cannot be termed as integral part of `cause of action in cases of detention. Placing reliance on AIR 1985 SC 1289 - State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. M/s. Swaike Properties and Another, High Court of Kerala in Mohandas s case 1993 I Ker. L.T. 35 - AIR 1994 NOC 162 (Kerala); K.K. Mohandas and Ors. v. State of Tamil Naidu and Ors. took the view as under : High Court can issue writs, directions or orders to any Government, authority or person even beyond its territorial writ jurisdiction, if cause of action partly arises within its territorial jurisdiction. Mere service of demand notice cannot give rise to cause of action unless service of such notice is an integral part of cause of action. Where Revenue Recovery Tehsildar of Kerala issued demand notices to persons in Kerala for realisation of amount due to Tamil Nadu Government, such notices cannot be construed as forming integral part of cause of action that arose wholly in State of Tamil Nadu. Thus as no cause of action arose partly in Kerala, jurisdiction of Kerala High Court cannot be invoked for challenging demand notices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|