AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1510
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S.-C.B.I., A.C.B., Lucknow pending in the Court of 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Amalgamation Order and against the judgement of the Supreme Court in cases of Nasiruddin 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gth and a bench of lesser quorum cannot disagree or dissent from the view of law taken by a Bench 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&#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pears to be founded upon the settled legal position propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nclusion, we have no option but to send the matter back to the learned single Judge for decision on merits in accordance 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 pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is demonstrated that the said decision by any subsequent change in law or decision ceases to laying down a correct law 18. 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 n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Courts Act, 1861, enacted by the British Parliament, gave to the Crown the authority to establish High Courts at Calcutta, Madras, 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w since the year 1921 yet the Chief Court in Oudh used to exercise its jurisdiction only in respect of Oudh area. 17. Ultimately both Chambers of the Legislature of the United Provinces presented addresses 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 pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, it has to be interpreted in accordance with its common dictionary meaning and we have quoted the dictionary meaning as given in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. 1. If we accept that meaning, as 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 loca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d cannot be decided by the judges at Allahabad in the absence of an order contemplated by the second proviso to Article 14 of the U.P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948. Question No. 4:--The expression "in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh" 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) overrule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Consolidation, Shahjahanpur. The respondent No. 1 went up in revision and the Deputy Director, Consolidation, on 11 December, 1970, set aside the order. It is this order which forms subject-matter of writ petition No. 4170 of 1971. On 26 July, 1971 the writ petition was 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 f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses, it is incorrect to say that the litigant chooses any particular Court. The choice is by reason of the jurisdiction of the Court being attracted by part of cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court. Similarly, if the cause of action can be said to have arisen part 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Dass Khaturia (supra) to the first three questions referred to the Full Bench of this Court with certain modifications. However, the answer given by the High Court to the fourth question opining that the expression in respect of "cases arising in such areas of Oudh" used in first proviso to Clause 14 of the 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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Constitution provide how territorial jurisdiction shall be exercised by any High Court. Although the said clauses do not deal with principal seat or permanent bench of any High Court but in our opinion, there is no reason why the principle underlying thereunder cannot be applied to the functioning of the bifurcated territorial 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w. Therefore, if any order is passed in any proceedings by a criminal Court situate within the area of Oudh and the same is challenged before the High Court it is the Lucknow Bench of the High Court alone which will have jurisdiction in the matter, and not the principal seat of High Court at Allahabad. 10................ In Nirmal 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.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he offence was committed at Kanpur the jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions at Kanpur has been ousted on account of conferment of jurisdiction on the Court of Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Lucknow, by issuing notification under the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. The relief sought by the petitioners in the present petition under Section 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e requires, - (j) "local jurisdiction", in relation to a Court or Magistrate, means the local area within which the Court or Magistrate may exercise all or any of its or his powers under this Code; 7. Territorial divisions.-- (1) Every State shall be a sessions division or shall consist of sessions divisions; and every sessions division shall, for the purposes of this Code, be a district or consist of districts: Provided that every metropolitan 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 e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appears to it to be expedient or necessary, confer the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or of the second class on any member of the Judicial Service of the State, functioning as a Judge in a Civil Court. 14. Local jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates.-- (1) Subject to the control of the High Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, from time to time, define the local limits of the areas within which the Magistrates appointed under Section 11 or under Section 13 may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may respectively be invested under this Code. (2) Except as otherwise provided by such 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 lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property which is the subject of the offence was possessed by any person committing it or by any person who received or retained such property knowing or having reason to believe it to-be stolen property. (4) Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person. (5) Any offence which includes the possession of stolen property may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an appeal to the High Court against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. (2) If such conviction is in a case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, (25 of 1946) or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, the Central Government may direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. (3) When an appeal has been filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the High Court shall not enhance the sentence except after giving to the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement and while showing cause, the accused may plead for his acquittal or for the reduction of the sentence. 397. Calling for records to exercise 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 sati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay be, by the special Judge appointed for the case, or where there re more special Judges than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government. (3) When trying any case, a special Judge may also try any offence, other than an offence specified in Section 3, with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), a special Judge shall, as far as practicable, hold the trial of an offence on day-to-day basis. 27. Appeal and revision. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the High Court may exercise, so far as they may be applicable, all the powers of appeal and revision conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on a High Court as if the Court of special Judge were a Court of Session trying cases within the local limits of the High Court. 38. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Balram Dutt Sharma was dealing with the question whether the bail application on behalf of a accused against whom charge-sheet was submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Lucknow Bench alone had jurisdiction to entertain the bail application on a wholly erroneous premise. 40. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid observations, we have no hesitation in holding that the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench at Allahabad and the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court to entertain a bail application in a case where the offence was committed at Meerut which was within the territorial jurisdiction of Principal Bench at Allahabad and the F.I.R. was also filed at Meerut but parent F.I.R. was lodged at Lucknow and charge-sheet was also submitted at Lucknow, was incorrectly decided by the Division Bench without applying the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Nasiruddin (supra) correctly. 41. The grounds noted by the Division Bench of this Court in Sanjay Somani (supra) for its conclusions inter alia are that the view taken by this Court in Nirmal Dass Khaturia (supra) that with regard to the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that a case can be said to arise within the areas in Oudh only if the right of the petitioner in such an application arose first at a place within the area in Oudh, wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orded by the Apex Court fully conscious of the legal position and the same was binding and conclusive. 44. The Division Bench has further totally mis-constructed the fourth conclusion of the Apex Court in Nasiruddin's case in holding that the interpretation of the expression "cases arising in such areas in Oudh" as propounded by the Full Bench of this Court in Nirmal Dass Khathura (supra) that a case would be said to be first arising within the areas of Oudh, with regard to the writ petitions, only if the right of the petitioner in such an application arose first in a place within the areas in Oudh, was overruled in Nasiruddin's case and further in observing that when the Court used the words "or otherwise as provided in the Criminal Procedure Code" in Nasiruddin's case, it obviously meant the place, where the Criminal Court will have jurisdiction to hold enquiry or trial having regard to Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 45. The Apex Court had in fact while setting aside the fourth conclusion of Nirmal Dass Khathuria (supra) had not held that where the case originates in a place outside the territorial jurisdiction of Oudh but appeal or revisional o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at either no part of cause of action arose within Allahabad or Allahabad ceased to be the place from where the case arose and the Principal Bench at Allahabad had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order passed by the C.B.I. Court at Lucknow. 48. Regard may further be had to the fact that when the Code of Criminal Procedure refers to the local jurisdiction, it sets out the territories over which the Court of Sessions and Magistrate would exercise jurisdiction. In so far as the High Court is concerned, it defines to mean the High Court of the State. Neither the Cr.P.C. nor the Prevention of Corruption Act touch or modify the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. No notification issued by the State Government directing that any case or class of cases committed for trial in any district be tried in any Sessions Division by a Special Court, can have the effect of increasing or decreasing the territorial jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench which stands finally determined under Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948. This embargo on the power of the State Government in this regard is also borne out from the proviso to Section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olly within the specified Oudh areas, it is indisputable that the Lucknow Bench will have exclusive jurisdiction in such a matter and if the cause of action arises in part within the specified areas in Oudh, it would be open to the litigant who is dominus litis to have his forum conveniens 50. Reference may also be made to Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which provides that subject to the provisions of this Act, the High Court may exercise, so far as they may be applicable, all powers of appeal and revision conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on a High Court as if the Court of Special Judge was a Court of Sessions trying cases within the local limits of the High Court. 51. As envisaged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, a Special Judge may be appointed for trial of offences and the said Judge may exercise powers over such areas or group of cases as may be specified by the State Government. Under Section 4(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, every offence punishable thereunder is liable to be tried by a Special Judge appointed for the area within which it was committed. 52. Thus, what follows from the above is that the Special Jud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Bench specifically held that it would depend on the place where the offence was committed or as otherwise provided in the Cr.P.C. in so far as the Cr.P.C. is concerned, the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts is provided for in Chapter XIII. Section 177 of the Cr.P.C. provides that the offence is ordinarily to be tried within the local jurisdiction of the Court where it is committed. Sections- 179 to 185 provide for various contingencies to decide where the trial of the offence may be held. The aforesaid provisions far from extinguishing or restricting the basic principle enshrined in Section 177 expand it to cover Courts where a part of the offence may have been committed or where a part of cause of action relating to the crime may accrue. From the above, it is clear that the jurisdiction of two seats of the High Court would depend upon the cause of action relating to the crime committed. If a part of the cause of action of the crime namely its commission arises in a district within one of the two seats, then the said seat would certainly retain jurisdiction to consider an appeal or revision or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in respect of the same. In case the crime i....