Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1964 DIGILAW 88 (ALL)

Shital v. State of U. P.

1964-02-25

GANGESHWAR PRASAD, V.G.OAK

body1964
JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - The following question has been referred by a learned single Judge of this Court to a larger Bench. "Is notification No. 76/14-39 dated 5-5-1961 (published in Govt., Gazette of Uttar Pradesh dated July 15, 1961) giving exclusive jurisdiction to the Lucknow Bench to hear cases arising out of the district of Faizabad ultra vires and without jurisdiction?" That question arose under the following circumstances. Shital applicant is being prosecuted in district Faizabad. In December 1963 he filed before this Court an application under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., requesting that the proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed. At the time of admission of the application under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., the learned single Judge felt some doubt as to whether the application arising from district Faizabad could be entertained by this Court at Allahabad. He had in mind the order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 5-5-1961. That order dated 5-5-1961 runs thus :- "In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 14 of the U. P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order 1948 and in partial modification of the Courts Notification No. 9676/IC-39, dated December 14, 1948, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is pleased to direct that with effect from July 8, 1961 the Bench of the High Court at Lucknow, shall exercise Jurisdiction and power in respect of all cases except cases under the Companies Act, 1956, (No. 1 of 1956) and the Indian income Tax Act, 1922 arising within the local limits of the Jurisdiction of the District and Sessions Judge, Faizabad. Provided that nothing herein contained shall affect the Jurisdiction and power of the Allahabad Bench in respect of proceedings already pending before it prior to coming into force of the above order and the cases previously instituted shall continue to be heard at Allahabad." The learned single Judge perhaps thought that, that order dated 5-5-1961 gives the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court exclusive jurisdiction to deal with matters arising out of district Faizabad. He, therefore, referred the question of law quoted above to a larger Bench. 2. Both the parties relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Union of India v. Chheda Lal, AIR 1958 Alld. 652 : 1958 ALJ 392. In that case the Civil Judge of Barabanki had passed a decree. He, therefore, referred the question of law quoted above to a larger Bench. 2. Both the parties relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Union of India v. Chheda Lal, AIR 1958 Alld. 652 : 1958 ALJ 392. In that case the Civil Judge of Barabanki had passed a decree. An appeal against that decree was presented to this Court at Allahabad. The question arose whether presentation of that appeal at Allahabad was proper. It was held by the Full Bench that, presentation of the appeal at Allahabad was proper. 3. The filing of the application under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. by Shital at Allahabad raises two connected questions: - (1) Was the application properly filed at Allahabad ?, and (2) Can that application be disposed of by this Court at Allahabad? As regards the first point, it was conceded for the respondents that, in view of the Full Bench decision in Chheda Lal's case, A.I.R. 1958 Alld. 652 : 1958 A.L.J. 392 the presentation of the application at Allahabad must be considered proper. But the learned Advocate-General contended that, that application cannot be disposed of at Allahabad. It has to go to the Lucknow Bench for disposal. On the other hand, Sri S. N. Kacker appearing for the applicant maintains that, the application can be finally disposed of at Allahabad. 4. It is true that in Chheda Lal's case, AIR 1958 Alld. 652 : 1958 ALJ 392 the Full Bench was mainly concerned with the presentation of the civil appeal at Allahabad. But in dealing with that question, the learned Judges also dealt with the broad question of jurisdiction of the Bench of Allahabad. Mootham, C. J. observed on page 653: - "The jurisdiction of the Court at Allahabad extends over the whole of the Uttar Pradesh and that the view taken in M. A. Jalil v. Rex, AIR 1952 All. 550 that it is restricted to those parts of the State over which the Lucknow Bench for the time being does not exercise jurisdiction is not correct." Again R. Dayal, J. observed on page 654: - "Article 14 of the Amalgamation Order has nothing to do with the question of jurisdiction. 550 that it is restricted to those parts of the State over which the Lucknow Bench for the time being does not exercise jurisdiction is not correct." Again R. Dayal, J. observed on page 654: - "Article 14 of the Amalgamation Order has nothing to do with the question of jurisdiction. It deals only with the place of sitting of the new High Court, its Judges and division courts and provides that they will sit at Allahabad." Srivastava, J. observed on page 655:- "From the fact that the Lucknow Bench exercises the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in the new High Court in respect of cases arising in Oudh, therefore, it does not follow necessarily that the power and jurisdiction it exercises is exclusive or the remainder of the High Court has been deprived of the power and jurisdiction to deal with those cases." Again, on page 656: - "The rest of the High Court which is not sitting at Lucknow is to deal ordinarily with the cases arising outside Oudh, but continues to have the power and jurisdiction which can be exercised throughout the State including the area of Oudh. That power has not been taken away." It will thus be seen that, all the learned Judges were agreed that, although district Barabanki lies in Oudh, the Bench at Allahabad is competent to deal with cases arising from district Barabanki. The general observations were not confined to the stage of admission. The learned Judges considered that the Bench at Allahabad is competent to dispose of cases arising out of district Barabanki. 5. Reliance was placed on behalf of the respondents on the following observation of Srivastava, J. on page 656 in Chheda Lal's case, AIR 1958 Alld. 652 : 1958 ALJ 392 - "Nor can it be dismissed as improperly presented. In fact under the second proviso to Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order the Hon. the Chief Justice can even direct that the appeal be heard at Allahabad." Relying upon that observation, it was urged for the respondents that, in the absence of a specific direction by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice that this particular application is to be heard at Allahabad, the application cannot be disposed of at Allahabad. In order to find out whether that contention is well founded, one has to examine the provision of Clause 14 of the U.P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Amalgamation Order). Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order is in these terms: - "The new High Court, and the Judges and division courts thereof, shall sit at Allahabad or at such other places in the United Provinces as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor of the United Provinces, appoint: Provided that unless the Governor of the United Provinces with the concurrence of the Chief Justice, otherwise directs, such Judges of the new High Court, not less than two in number, as the Chief Justice, may, from time to time nominate, shall sit at Lucknow in order to exercise in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh, as the Chief Justice may direct, the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in the new High Court: Provided further that the Chief Justice may in his discretion order that any case or class of cases arising in the said area shall be heard at Allahabad." 6. Under the first proviso, the Chief Justice can nominate the Judges, who have to sit at Lucknow. He can also direct which areas in Oudh will be within the jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench. Under the second proviso to clause 14, the Chief Justice may direct that any class of cases arising in such areas shall be heard at Allahabad. The learned Advocate-General relied upon the second proviso to clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order. It was urged that, in the absence of any specific order under the second proviso, this particular case cannot be heard at Allahabad. 7. That does not however appear to be the true scope of the second proviso. The two provisos to Clause 14 have to be read together. According to the first proviso, cases arising in certain areas in Oudh can be disposed of by the Lucknow Bench. But certain cases arising in those very areas must be heard at Allahabad, if the Chief Justice so directs. In the order dated 5-5-61, the Chief Justice appears to have utilised power under both these provisos. He directed that cases arising from district Faizabad shall be heard at Lucknow. But certain cases arising in those very areas must be heard at Allahabad, if the Chief Justice so directs. In the order dated 5-5-61, the Chief Justice appears to have utilised power under both these provisos. He directed that cases arising from district Faizabad shall be heard at Lucknow. But cases under the Companies Act and the Income Tax Act were excluded from that primary direction. The result is that, although most cases from district Faizabad can be heard at Lucknow, cases under the Companies Act and the Income Tax Act have to be heard at Allahabad. To hold that a case from district Faizabad can be heard by the Allahabad Bench does not render the second proviso to clause 14 redundant. 8. Originally, there were only two grounds in the application under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Subsequently, a number of other grounds were added in the application. Sri S.N. Kacker appearing for the applicant stated that, he would not seriously urge that the order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 5-5-1961 is ultra vires, so long as that order does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Lucknow Bench. As explained above, the order dated 5-5-1961 does not have that effect. All that the order dated 5-5-1961 lays down is that, cases from district Faizabad can be heard at Lucknow. That order does not touch the jurisdiction of the Bench at Allahabad, in spite of the order dated 5-5-1961, it would be open to the Bench at Allahabad to dispose of the application dated 2-12-1963 from district Faizabad under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The question referred to the Bench mentions exclusive jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench. As pointed out above, there is no question of exclusive jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench as a consequence of the order dated 5-5-1961. It is merely a question of jurisdiction, as contemplated by the first proviso to clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order. 9. Our answer to the question referred to the Bench is therefore as follows: - "The Notification No. 76/14-39 dated 5-5-1961 is neither ultra vires nor without jurisdiction. But that notification does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Lucknow Bench. In spite of the notification dated 5-5-1961, it is possible to have the application under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. from district Faizabad disposed of by this Court at Allahabad."