Territorial jurisdiction of High Court Benches depends on cause of action or offence, not the Special Judge's place of sitting.

Territorial jurisdiction between the Allahabad and Lucknow Benches is governed by Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948, read with the constitutional and historical allocation preserved by Article 225, and the controlling test is where the cause of action arises or, in criminal matters, where the offence is committed. Notifications constituting Special Judges and fixing their place of sitting regulate the trial forum but do not alter High Court territorial jurisdiction. The preliminary objection to the Full Bench reference was rejected because earlier Division Bench views had not considered the contrary ruling and did not bar reference to a larger Bench.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the preliminary objection to the Full Bench reference was maintainable; (ii) whether territorial jurisdiction between the Allahabad and Lucknow Benches is governed by Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948 as interpreted in Nasiruddin, and not by the location of the Special Judge/CBI Court or by notifications issued under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Issue (i): Whether the preliminary objection to the Full Bench reference was maintainable.

Analysis: The objection was examined in the light of the rules of judicial discipline, the doctrine of binding precedent, and the principle that a Bench of lesser strength cannot overrule or dissent from a larger Bench. It was also considered whether the reference was rendered incompetent merely because an earlier view had tentatively been indicated. The earlier Division Bench decisions relied upon for objection had not considered an earlier contrary Division Bench ruling, and the question referred was therefore not barred from consideration by a larger Bench.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether territorial jurisdiction between the Allahabad and Lucknow Benches is governed by Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948 as interpreted in Nasiruddin, and not by the location of the Special Judge/CBI Court or by notifications issued under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction of the two Benches was held to flow from the constitutional and historical allocation preserved by Article 225 of the Constitution and Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948. The controlling test is the place where the cause of action arises, and in criminal matters, the place where the offence is committed or otherwise as provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Notifications constituting Special Judges and fixing their places of sitting regulate the forum for trial but do not alter the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. The earlier Division Bench views treating the situs of the Special Judge as determinative were held to be inconsistent with the authoritative exposition in Nasiruddin and later reaffirmations.

Conclusion: Territorial jurisdiction is to be determined by Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948 and the place of cause of action or offence, and not by the location of the Special Judge/CBI Court.

Final Conclusion: The Full Bench answered the reference by rejecting the objection and clarifying that the earlier Division Bench decisions did not lay down the correct law; the matters were remitted to the learned Single Judge for decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: The territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad and Lucknow Benches is governed by the Amalgamation Order, 1948, and criminal jurisdiction depends on where the offence or cause of action arises, not on the situs of the Special Court before which the case is tried.

---