https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199317 Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was interpreted as territorially confined to the High Court or Court of Session having jurisdiction over the place where the alleged offence was committed. Reading Section 438 with Sections 437, 439 and the ordinary territorial rule in Section 177, the Court rejected forum choice based on the accused's apprehension of arrest or place of residence. The bench arrangement under the Permanent Bench at Ranchi Act also required filing in the notified territorial forum, so matters arising from Singhbhum lay before the Ranchi Bench and not the Patna seat. The petition was therefore not maintainable before the Patna seat. en-us Tue, 07 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Feb 2018 13:12:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199317 Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was interpreted as territorially confined to the High Court or Court of Session having jurisdiction over the place where the alleged offence was committed. Reading Section 438 with Sections 437, 439 and the ordinary territorial rule in Section 177, the Court rejected forum choice based on the accused's apprehension of arrest or place of residence. The bench arrangement under the Permanent Bench at Ranchi Act also required filing in the notified territorial forum, so matters arising from Singhbhum lay before the Ranchi Bench and not the Patna seat. The petition was therefore not maintainable before the Patna seat. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 07 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199317