Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 510 (ORI)

PURNA CHANDRA BISWAL v. STATE OF ORISSA

2002-08-13

P.K.TRIPATHY

body2002
JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Heard. 2. This revision has been filed challenging the order of framing charge by learned C.J.M.-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Sonepur in Sessions Case No. 113/3 of 2001. It appears from the impugned order that charge for the offence under Sections 313/114, IPC has been framed. Petitioner is one of the accused persons in the said Sessions Case. 3. When this revision is taken up for admission, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Mr. D. P. Dhai states that as per the instruction received by him, trial of the said Sessions Case has already started and six witnesses have already been examined by 29.7.2002 when stay order was passed by this Court and therefore, this revision has become infructuous and accordingly it be disposed of. Be that as it may, since the impugned order of charge is before this Court, and as this Court finds some illegality in the said order, therefore, even if the Petitioner does not press the application, this Court is duty-bound to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 4. It appears from the allegation made in the FIR and the statement of the informant Gahaki Biswal that with the assurance of marriage, the co-accused Japa @ Jubaraj Biswal cohabitated with the informant and made her pregnant. However, he avoided to marry the informant. When the pregnancy became six months old, as alleged, said accused Japa took the informant to Bargarh and in Behera Nursing Home got the child aborted by terminating the pregnancy and in that connection the present Petitioner, i.e., accused Purna helped him and thereby committed the offence of an abettor as punishable u/s 114 IPC. That is the substance of the allegation, on the basis of which, on 17.6.2002 learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Sonepur framed charge. Since the allegations made in the FIR and the statement for the offences under Sections 313 & 114, IPC occurred at Bargarh, learned Asst. Sessions Judge should have considered the provision in Chapter XIII, Code of Criminal Procedure about his jurisdiction to try the case. Admittedly, that aspect has not been considered by the trial Court. Since the allegations made in the FIR and the statement for the offences under Sections 313 & 114, IPC occurred at Bargarh, learned Asst. Sessions Judge should have considered the provision in Chapter XIII, Code of Criminal Procedure about his jurisdiction to try the case. Admittedly, that aspect has not been considered by the trial Court. It is not expected of an officer in the rank of Chief Judicial Magistrate having been invested with the power of Assistant Sessions Judge to commit such legal blunder, as a result of which ultimately the victim may render without any legal remedy because of trial in a Court having no jurisdiction. If learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Sonepur considers that any part of the occurrence constituting the offence was committed within his local jurisdiction, then charge for such offence should have been framed alongwith the offences under Sections 313/114, IPC. That having not been done, prima facie it appears that the Asst. Sessions Judge, Sonepur has no jurisdiction to try the case. 5. The above observation of this Court is based on the certified copy of the order-sheet and the charge. However, the trial Court may consider afresh the matter u/s 228, Code of Criminal Procedure and if he shall find that he has no jurisdiction to try the case, then he shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law for making over the case to appropriate jurisdiction by following the due procedure. On the other hand, if he shall find that any particular occurrence constituting an offence was committed within his jurisdiction, then charge is to be afresh framed including that offence alongwith the offences under Sections 313/114, IPC. 6. Because of the aforesaid circumstance, the impugned charge is legally not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside and the trial Court is directed to afresh consider the matter u/s 228, Code of Criminal Procedure and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The whole exercise be completed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sonepur within a period of two weeks from the date bf receipt of a copy of this order. 7. As per the contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner, since six witnesses had already been examined, therefore, there maybe a chance of disposal of the Sessions Case by the time a copy o' this order in usual process is received in the trial Court. 7. As per the contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner, since six witnesses had already been examined, therefore, there maybe a chance of disposal of the Sessions Case by the time a copy o' this order in usual process is received in the trial Court. Therefore Deputy Regisliar (Judicial) shall intimate learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Sonepur not to dispose of the said Sessions Case and to wait for a copy of this order. This part of the order be complied by 14.8.2002.