9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Special Judge (Anti-Corruption)-Ist, Lucknow. In the six other connected applications prayer made is either for quashing of the proceedings or for clubbing the criminal proceedings under the provisions of Section 220 Cr.P.C. The application in hand alongwith the connected matters was assigned to Hon'ble R.D. Khare, J. vide order dated 1.3.2012 passed by Hon'ble Chief Justice. It is noteworthy that Hon'ble R.D. Khare, J. had earlier vide order dated 29.9.2011 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 32256 of 2011; Shiv Pratap Singh and others v. Superintendent of Police, C.B.I./Acb, Lucknow and another, held that the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench of Allahabad High Court would not be ousted on account of the police report being filed before the Special Judge, C.B.I. Court constituted at Lucknow in respect of the offences arising out of those districts which were beyond the limits of territorial jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench of this Court and it would be open to the litigants to institute their cases either at the Principal Bench at Allahabad or the Lucknow Bench. When the present case alongwith other connected matters came up for hearing before Hon'ble R.D. Khar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in and para 14 of U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill's case? 4. Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the C.B.I. raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the reference and submitted that the reference order itself is bad. Advancing his submissions in this regard further, he submitted that the reason for nominating this case and the connected matters to Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. appears to be that earlier Hon'ble R.D. Khare, J. had in Criminal Misc. Application (Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) No. 32256 of 2011 held that mere filing of the charge-sheet before the Special Judge, C.B.I. Court will not oust the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench of High Court at Allahabad where it is alleged that the offence was committed within the territorial limits of a district falling within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench while another single judge in Criminal Misc. application (Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) No. 32993 of 2011; Mohd. Yasir v. State of U.P., took a diagonally opposite view holding that the Principal Bench stood stripped of its jurisdiction in a matter where challenge was to an order passed by the C.B.I. Court at Lucknow which is subordinate to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch of larger quorum. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench whose decision has come up for consideration and it will be open for a Bench of coequal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of coequal strength. 7. Advancing his submissions further, Sri Khanna submitted that Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi while observing in para 28 of the reference order that the conclusions of the two Division Benches in the case of Sanjay Somani and Dr. Balram Dutt Sharma (supra) are not only against the provisions and objects of Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order but also appear to be in conflict with construction of the aforesaid clause by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nasiruddin (supra) has clearly gone on to disagree or dissent from the Division Bench which was beyond His Lordship's jurisdiction. 8. Sri Khanna also submitted that the questions framed by Hon'ble Single Judge do not call for any adjudication by the Full Bench in view of the fact tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community as well as Constitutional Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Rana Pratap Singh (supra) that the Bench of lesser quorum cannot disagree or dissent from the view of law taken by a bench of larger quorum. It would be relevant to quote paras 5 and 10 of the judgement rendered in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (2) SCC 673. 5. In Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.'s case (supra) the Constitution Bench has ruled that a decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court binds a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court and that judicial discipline obliges them to follow it, regardless of their doubts about its correctness. At the most, they could have ordered that the matter be heard by a Bench of three learned Judges. Following this view of the law what has been declared by this Court in Pradip Chandra Parija and others case (supra) clinches the issue. The facts in the case were that a Bench of two learned Judges expressed dissent with another judgment of three learned Judges and directed the matter to be placed before a larger Bench of five Judges. The Constitution Bench considered the rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cordance with law. 14. If we examine the preliminary objection raised by Sri Khanna in the light of the law laid down in the cases of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Rana Pratap Singh (supra), the same at the first glance appears to be well founded and attractive. It is true that in the order of reference there is no mention of the earlier Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Baldeoram (supra) which had apparently taken a view entirely different from that propounded by the later division Benches in the case of Sanjay Somani and Dr. Balram Dutt Sharma (supra). The correctness of the law laid down by these two Division Benches has not been questioned by any bench of coordinate strength of this Court, yet since now it has been brought to our notice that an earlier Division Bench of this Court in Baldeo Ram (supra) which had taken a view contrary to that expounded by the two subsequent Division Benches in Dr. Balram Dutt Sharma and Sanjay Somani (supra) had escaped the notice of the aforesaid subsequent Division Benches, the same cannot be said to be binding precedents on the issue decided by those Division Benches. 15. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. The second count on which reference order has been assailed by Sri Khanna is also without any substance in view of the fact that the observation made by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. in the reference order that the conclusion of Hon'ble R.D. Khare, J. appeared to His Lordship to be correct is merely tentative and not conclusive. We do not find any force in the preliminary objection raised by Sri Khanna regarding the reference being bad in law and the same is rejected. 19. The questions referred arise out of the following facts. The State Government in exercise of power conferred by Section 178 of Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1989) issued a notification on 5.10.1951 directing that all Special Police Establishment cases committed to the Court of session in any district in U.P. shall be tried in Lucknow sessions division. Exercising power under Section 193(2) of the same Code, it was further directed that the Sessions Judge, Lucknow, as Additional Sessions Judge of other sessions division in U.P. shall try such cases. Subsequently, another notification was issued whereunder more Courts of Special Judges were created for trial of cases wherein charge-sheets had be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bombay and at one other place. In the year 1868, High Court was shifted from Agra to Allahabad and later came to be known as High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. 9. In 1834, the Upper Provinces were separated from the Bengal Presidency to be governed by the newly constituted Agra Presidency with its Headquarters at Allahabad Fort, but in 1836 the Presidency was superseded by a Lt. Governorship of the North-Western Provinces with Head-quarters at Agra. In 1858 the Head-quarters of the Government were again shifted to Allahabad. 10. Avadh, after its annexation in 1856, had been placed under a Chief Commissioner but in 1877 it also came under the jurisdiction of the Lt. Governor and the whole territory was named as 'North-Western Provinces and Avadh'. This area was named as 'United Provinces' of Agra and Avadh in 1902. In 1921, after the implementation of India Constitutional Reforms, the area came under the jurisdiction of a Governor. A Legislative Council was formed at Lucknow in 1921 after the elections of 1920 and the seat of the Government was shifted from Allahabad to Lucknow in the same year. The shifting of the Secretariat from Allahabad to Lucknow was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddresses to the Governor to amalgamate the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Chief Court in Oudh and the said addresses were submitted to the Governor General, who in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 229 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and all other powers enabling him in that behalf promulgated the Amalgamation Order, 1948 whereby the High Court in Allahabad and the Chief Court in Oudh have been amalgamated and since then they constitute one High Court by the name of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. 21. Having broadly examined the historical aspect of the matter we now proceed to consider the questions referred to us. The territory over which High Court can exercise its jurisdiction is governed exclusively by the Constitution of India or its Charter. In terms of the Article 225 of the Constitution of India the territorial jurisdiction of High Court would be regulated in accordance with either the provisions of the Constitution or the provisions of any law of the appropriate legislature as was in force before the commencement of the Constitution of India. The conjoint reading of Article 225 of the Constitution of India which finds place in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we have to, then the phrase 'cases arising' must relate to the origin of a case, that is, these words must refer to the place or area of origin of the dispute. 23. The aforesaid expression appearing in Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order was next authoritatively decided by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Uma Shankar v. State, AIR 1971 All 96 (FB). The Full Bench in Uma Shankar (supra) while interpreting the expression cases arising in such areas in Oudh held that the question as to where a case arises, that is in Oudh or outside it would have to be determined on the basis of the stage of the case when the jurisdiction of the High Court is sought to be invoked for deciding as to where the case arises, not the place where the controversy originally originated would be material, but the place where the proceedings would culminate for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court would be relevant. The Full Bench thus propounded the principle of the location of the last Court which had passed the order sought to be assailed before the High Court as the basis for determining the question of jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench or the principal Bench at Allahabad. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used in the first proviso to Article 14 of the High Courts (Amalgamation), Order, 1948 refers to legal proceedings, including civil cases, criminal cases, petitions under Articles 226, 227 and 228 of the Constitution and petitions under Articles 132, 133 and 134 of the Constitution instituted before the judges sitting at Lucknow and having their origin, in the sense explained in the majority judgment, in such areas in Oudh as the Chief Justice may direct. The expression arising in such areas in Oudh refers to the place where the case originated in the sense explained in the majority judgment and not to the place of sitting of the last Court or authority whose decree or order is being challenged in the proceeding before the High Court. Question No. 5:--Writ Petition No. 5833 of 1971 cannot be entertained, heard and decided by the judges sitting at Lucknow. 26. The Full Bench of Nirmal Dass (supra) overruled the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Uma Shankar (supra) and held that the meaning of the expression in respect of cases arising in such areas of Oudh in the first proviso to Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order with regard to the application under Article ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... listed for orders before a Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice of the High Court and another learned Judge sitting at Lucknow. The Registry of the High Court at Lucknow reported that the petition related to the District of Shahjahanpur and question was raised as to the competency of the writ petition being presented before the Bench sitting at Lucknow. The matter eventually came before the Full Bench. 30. Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1974 arose out of the Criminal Revision No. 270 of 1973 filed in the Principal Bench of the High Court at Allahabad. The revision related to the sentence under Section 25 of the Arms Act passed by the Temporary Civil Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli. Question arose as to whether the revision should have been filed before the Lucknow Bench. Eventually the matter came before the Full Bench. 31. The Four Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Nasiruddin's case after noting the four questions which were referred to the Full Bench in Nirmal Dass Khaturia (supra), the answers returned by the majority view on the said questions, in paras 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 of its judgement held as hereunder: 35. The meaning of the expression in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... art within specified areas in Oudh and part outside the specified Oudh areas, the litigant will have the choice to institute proceedings either at Allahabad or Lucknow. The Court will find out in each case whether the jurisdiction of the Court rightly attracted by the alleged cause of action. 37. To sum up. Our conclusions are as follows. First there is no permanent seat of the High Court at Allahabad. The seats at Allahabad and at Lucknow may be changed in accordance with the provisions of the order. Second, the Chief Justice of the High Court has no power to increase or decrease the areas in Oudh from time to time. The areas in Oudh have been determined once by the Chief Justice and, therefore, there is no scope for changing the areas. Third, the Chief Justice has power under the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the order to direct in his discretion that any case or class of cases arising in Oudh areas shall be heard at Allahabad. Any case or class of cases are those which are instituted at Lucknow. The interpretation given by the High Court that the word heard confers powers on the Chief Justice to order that any case or class of cases arising in Oudh areas shall be instit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Amalgamation Order, 1948 means the place where the right of the petitioner in a writ application first arose and not to the place of last sitting of the Court or the authority whose decree or order is challenged in the proceedings before the High Court was set aside and it was held that the meaning of the expression in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh in the first proviso to Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948 is to be found by the appropriate Courts in the light of the judgement in Nasiruddin's case. The constitution Bench further held that a criminal case arises where offence has been committed or otherwise provided in the Criminal Procedure Code that will attract the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow Bench. In some cases depending on the facts, it may arise in either place. Thus, the import of the words the place where the case arises as explained by the Full Bench that a criminal case arises, where the offence is committed was affirmed by the Apex Court in Nasiruddin's case. 33. The Apex Court while interpreting Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948 in U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad (supra) has in para 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erritorial jurisdiction between the principal seat and permanent bench seat of any High Court. In case of a dispute arising whether an individual case or cases should be filed and heard at Jodhpur or Jaipur, the same has to be found out by applying the test from which district the case arises, that is, in which district the cause of action can be said to have arisen and then exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 35. However, the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Balram Dutt Sharma (supra) while considering the issue whether the bail application emanating from a criminal case registered in pursuance of the charge-sheet laid by the C.B.I. at Lucknow is maintainable before the Principal Bench or not and another Division Bench in the case of Sanjay Somani while considering the issue whether challenge to orders passed by Special Judge, C.B.I. Court at Lucknow can be entertained by the Principal seat at Allahabad or Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court held that it is the location of the Court which is determinative of the fact whether the challenge to the order passed by it can be entertained by the Principal Bench of Allahabad or Lucknow Bench of Alla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mal Dass Khaturia and others v. S.T. Tribunal, U.P. and others, AIR 1972 All 200, it was held by a Full Bench of this Court that with regard to the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution the same will be a case arising within the areas in Oudh only if the right of the petitioner in such an application arose first at a place within an area in Oudh. In Nasiruddin (supra) this conclusion of the Full Bench was specifically overruled (paragraph 36 of the Reports) and it was held that the expression 'cause of action in application under Article 226 would be as the expression is understood and if the cause of action arose because of an appellate order or the revisional order, which came to be passed at Lucknow, then Lucknow Bench would have jurisdiction though the original order was passed at a place outside the areas in Oudh. 11. Sri Giri has placed strong reliance on the following observations made in the Nasiruddin (supra) in paragraph 37 of the reports where conclusions were summarised: .....Fifth, a criminal case arises where the offence has been committed or otherwise as provided in the Criminal Procedure Code. That will attract the jurisdiction of the Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 482 Cr.P.C. is the quashing of the order passed by the Special Judge, (Anti-Corruption), Lucknow. Therefore, the abovequoted observation relied upon Sri Giri cannot be interpreted to mean that even in such a fact situation the principal seat at Allahabad will have jurisdiction to entertain the petition. 37. We now proceed to test the correctness of the conclusions of the two Division Benches and the reasons given in support thereof in the background of the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. and P.C. Act and Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948 as interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of Nasiruddin (supra) which indisputedly is the most authoritative pronouncement on the issue involved till date. It will be useful to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Amalgamation Order, 1948, Cr.P.C. and of the P.C. Act. The United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948. 2. (a) the Act means the Government of India Act, 1935 as for the time being in force in the Dominion of India; appointed day means the twenty-sixth day of July, 1948; And existing High Courts means the High Courts referred to in Section 219 of the Act as the High Courts in Allahaba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... litan area shall, for the said purposes, be a separate sessions division and district. (2) The State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, alter the limits or the number of such divisions and districts. (3) The State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, divide any district into sub-divisions and may alter the limits or the number of such sub-divisions. (4) The sessions divisions, districts and sub-divisions existing in a State at the commencement of this Code, shall be deemed to have been formed under this section. 8. Court of Session.-- (1) The State Government shall establish a Court of Session for every sessions division. (2) Every Court of Session shall be presided over by a Judge, to be appointed by the High Court. (3) The High Court may also appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session. (4) The Sessions Judge of one sessions division may be appointed by the High Court to be also an Additional Sessions Judge of another division, and in such case he may sit for the disposal of cases at such place or places in the other division as the High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h definition, the jurisdiction and powers of every such Magistrate shall extend throughout the district. [(3) Where the local jurisdiction of a magistrate, appointed under Section 11 or Section 13 or Section 18, extends to an area beyond the district, or the metropolitan area, as the case may be, in which he ordinarily holds Court, any reference in this Code to the Court of Sessions, Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall, in relation to such Magistrate, throughout the area within his local jurisdiction, be construed, unless the context otherwise requires, as a reference to the Court of Sessions, Chief Judicial Magistrate, or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, exercising jurisdiction in relation to the said district or metropolitan area.] 177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial-- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 178. Place of inquiry or trial.-- (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... committed or the stolen property was possessed by any person who received or retained it knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property. 182. Offences committed by letters, etc.-- (1) Any offence which includes cheating may, if the deception is practiced by means of letters or telecommunication messages, be inquired into or tried by any Court within whose local jurisdiction such letters or messages were sent or were received; and any offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the property was delivered by the person deceived or was received by the accused person. (2) Any offence punishable under Section 494 or Section 495 of the (Indian) Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the offender last resided with his or her spouse by the first marriage. 183. Offence committed on journey or voyage.-- When an offence is committed whilst the person by or against whom, or the thing in respect of which, the offence is committed is in the course of performing a journey or voyage, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ercise powers of revision.-- (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation.--All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 398. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding, (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the question whether the bail application on behalf of a accused against whom charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Court, C.B.I. at Lucknow was maintainable before the Principal Bench or Lucknow Bench in view of the fact that the alleged offence of misappropriation, forgery and cheating was committed by him in the district of Meerut. The Division Bench after referring to the judgement of Nasiruddin (supra) and the First proviso to Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948 and the provisions of Sections- 437 and 438 Cr.P.C. held that the cause of action for bail might be differentiated from as cause of action for writ petition and cause of action for bail may only arise after the accused is detained and arrested in connection with the F.I.R. and charge-sheet and since in the case of Dr. Balram Dutt Sharma, the parent F.I.R. was lodged at Lucknow, although the F.I.R. against Dr. Balram Dutt Sharma was registered at Meerut but he was arrested pursuant to the basic/parent F.I.R. filed at Lucknow and charge-sheet was also laid before the Special Court, C.B.I. at Lucknow, the Division Bench was of the view that the cause of action for filing the bail application arose with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly if the right of the petitioner in such an application arose first at a place within the area in Oudh, was specifically overruled in Nasiruddin's case; and that the fifth conclusion drawn in Nasiruddin's case in para 37 of the reports was made in a general manner with regard to normal situation and the Supreme Court was not contemplating a situation where the Special Court had been created to try a particular class of offences which had been investigated by the C.B.I. and that single Court had been conferred jurisdiction to try such cases of several districts and that the observation a criminal case arises where the offence has been committed does not mean that a criminal case may necessarily be arising in the local area where the offence has been committed. The Division Bench in Sanjay Somani (supra) further justified its conclusion by explaining that the words case arising in Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948 means a subject on which the judicial power is capable of acting and which has been submitted to it by a party in the forms required bylaw and therefore, if any order is passed in any case by a criminal Court situate within the area of Oudh, the same ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here the case originates in a place outside the territorial jurisdiction of Oudh but appeal or revisional order is passed by the authority at Lucknow, the Lucknow Bench alone will have jurisdiction to entertain a petition challenging such an order. It merely decided that in such a contingency, Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction though the original order was passed in a place outside the areas of Oudh meaning thereby that in such circumstances where the cause of action arises partly in the specified areas of Oudh or part of the cause of action arises outside the specified areas, it will be open to the litigant who is dominus litis to frame the case appropriately to attract the jurisdiction either at Lucknow Bench or principal seat at Allahabad.. 46. In our view, there is nothing in Chapter XIII of the Criminal Procedure Code, which may lend support to the theory advanced by the Division Bench that it is the location of the Court which is determinative of the fact whether challenge to the orders passed by it can be entertained by the principal seat at Allahabad or Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The inherent fallacy in the reasoning of the Division Bench is apparent f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... embargo on the power of the State Government in this regard is also borne out from the proviso to Section 185 Cr.P.C. which clearly provides that the power under Section 185 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the State Government subject to the condition that any notification or direction issued under the aforesaid section is not repugnant to any direction previously issued by the High Court either under the Constitution or the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force. 49. From the above, it is apparent that although the State Government may for certain reasons direct that a class of cases otherwise triable in a particular Sessions division, may be transferred to any other Sessions Division such exercise of power would not be liable to be read in any manner contrary to any direction of the High Court or any other law for the time being in force. There is no dispute that the Amalgamation Order, 1948 was a law for the time being in force at the time of the commencement of the Constitution. The Division Bench in Sanjay Somani holding that the context in which the words case arising has been used in Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, would mean a subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the area within which it was committed. 52. Thus, what follows from the above is that the Special Judge may hold a trial in respect of an offence committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act sitting at any place either within or outside the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court or its Bench. If the intention of the Legislature was that the Special Judge appointed under Section 4(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act shall be treated subordinate only to Principal Bench at Allahabad High Court or Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court, as the case may be, depending upon the location of such Special Court, such stipulation would have definitely been found in Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which provides that the High Court may exercise all powers of appeal and revision conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure on the High Court. The absence of any such provision under Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the use of words as if and were a in Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act gives rise only to one inference that the Court of Special Judge constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act would be like a Court of Sessions sit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r an appeal or revision or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in respect of the same. In case the crime is triable before a Special Judge, whose Court may be located within the jurisdiction of one of the seats of the High Court, as is factual position in the present case, that would not be sufficient ground to denude the other seat of its jurisdiction. In a case such as the case in hand where admittedly the offence was committed in Allahabad and the F.I.R. was also lodged at Allahabad, which is within the territorial limits of the Principal Bench of Allahabad High Court, it goes without saying that part of the cause of action had accrued within the territorial limits of Allahabad district, notwithstanding the fact that the impugned order was passed by the Special C.B.I. Court located at Lucknow, which has been conferred with the exclusive jurisdiction to try the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, it would be incorrect to hold that the Principal Bench has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., a criminal appeal or a criminal revision against the order passed by such Special Court at Lucknow and such an interpretation would be in direct con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
