JUDGMENT The State has preferred this revision against the discharge of the non-applicant, who figures as the 4th accused in Sessions Trial No; 313/1991 on the file of Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur. The prosecution case is that the offences of kidnapping and rape were committed by accused No. 1 to accused No. 3 and the pregnancy of the prosecutrix was got terminated by the 4th accused, who is a Regd. Medical Practitioner at Raipur. The 1carned Government Advocate representing the State argued that the learned Sessions Judge having exercised jurisdiction in framing charge against Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 fur offences punishable u/Ss. 366/376 IPC, has committed an error in discharging Accused No.4 for the offence alleged against her u/s. 313 I.P.C. and Sec. 3 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The learned counsel for the non-applicant submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in discharging the accused, because he had no territorial jurisdiction to try an offence which has taken place at Raipur, where the 4th accused was practising. The offences of kidnapping and rape are said to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Division of Jagdalpur and that is why the learned Sessions Judge has framed charges against Accused No.1 to Accused No. 1 under the relevant provisions. On the ground that he has no territorial jurisdiction to try the offence u/s. 313 IPC, he has discharged the fourth accused. As submitted by the learned counsel for the non-applicant, the offences of kidnapping and rape are distinct IInd separate offences. The learned Government Advocate, relying upon section 178 (c) of the Cr.P.C. submitted that, inasmuch as, the offence u/s. 313 IPC is a continuing one, the enquiry or trial can be conducted even in the Court at Jagdalpur. But, it is not possible to say that the offence u/s. 313 IPC is a continuing one. Section 313 IPC being a distinct offence, which has no nexus with the alleged kidnapping and rape, I agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the non-applicant that the order of discharge against the non-applicant for want of territorial jurisdiction is perfectly correct. Section 313 IPC being a distinct offence, which has no nexus with the alleged kidnapping and rape, I agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the non-applicant that the order of discharge against the non-applicant for want of territorial jurisdiction is perfectly correct. The learned counsel for the non-applicant also, referring to section 13 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, tried to argue on the merits of the case, in order to satisfy me that even assuming that the prosecution case is correct, no offence was committed by the non-applicant. When the Sessions Judge has discharged the non-applicant on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction, I feel that it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case and give any finding at this stage. The revision is, therefore, dismissed, confirming the order of discharge against the non-applicant. Since the non-applicant is on bail, as per order of this Court, the bail bonds furnished by her shall stand discharged.