Transfer of criminal proceedings turns on the place of the principal offence and exclusive territorial linkage under reorganisation law.

Section 89 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 transfers pending proceedings that relate exclusively to Jharkhand, with "exclusively" read in its statutory context and in light of the corresponding-court scheme. The decisive test is where the proceeding would have been instituted after the appointed day. For offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, jurisdiction follows the place where the principal offence was committed, because trial lies before the Special Judge for that area. On that basis, the alleged misappropriation was completed where public money was withdrawn from treasuries in the territory that became Jharkhand, and related conspiracy or preparatory acts elsewhere did not alter the trial forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the 36 criminal cases arising out of the fodder scam stood transferred to the corresponding courts in Jharkhand on the appointed day under Section 89 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000.

Analysis: Section 89 required transfer of every pending proceeding that related exclusively to the territory of Jharkhand. The expression "exclusively" was construed in its statutory setting by applying the principle of noscitur a sociis and the definition of the corresponding court in the Act. The decisive test was where the proceeding would have been instituted after the appointed day. In criminal cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the controlling factor was the place where the main offence was committed, because Section 4(2) of that Act confined trial to the Special Judge for the area where the offence occurred. The alleged misappropriation and unlawful gain were completed when the public money was withdrawn from treasuries situated in the territories that became Jharkhand. The possibility that some allied acts, conspiracy, preparation, or incidental acts may have occurred at Patna did not alter the place of trial for the principal offence.

Conclusion: The proceedings related exclusively to the territory of Jharkhand and stood transferred to the corresponding courts in Jharkhand on the appointed day.

Ratio Decidendi: For transfer under Section 89 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, the word "exclusively" is to be read pragmatically as referring to proceedings whose main subject matter and place of commission lie principally in the successor State, and for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, jurisdiction is determined by the place where the principal offence was committed.

---