Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 128 (CAL)

Sukhendu Sardar v. Union of India

2003-03-19

Bhaskar Bhattacharya

body2003
JUDGMENT Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. By this writ application the writ petitioner, a convicted employee of the Border Security Force has challenged the charge sheet, the entire process of trial and the ultimate order of punishment dated January 30, 2002 which has since been affirmed by the order of the appellate authority. By the said order, the petitioner has been dismissed from service and has been ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years in Civil Jail. 2. Mrs. Quairshi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this writ application on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. She points out that all the respondents are stationed beyond territorial limit of this Court and that no part of cause of action leading to filing of the present writ application has accrued within such limit of this Court. 3. Mr. Majumdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner however has resisted the aforesaid preliminary objection raised by Mrs. Quarishi and has contended by relying upon the averments made in paragraph 40 of the present writ application that as the petitioner is now suffering imprisonment pursuant to the order impugned in Dum Dum Central Jail, part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial limit of this Court. He further submits that the statutory appeal against the order of conviction was preferred by the petitioner from the Dum Dum Central Jail and the order of the appellate authority has also been served upon him through the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail, West Bengal and as such part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In support of such contention, Mr. Majumdar strongly relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nabinchandra Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2000)7 SCC 640 . 4. In support of such contention, Mr. Majumdar strongly relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nabinchandra Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2000)7 SCC 640 . 4. In the said case, a writ application was filed in the Bombay High Court for quashing the complaint lodged against the petitioner at Shillong or in the alternative to issue writ of mandamus directing the State of Meghalaya to transfer the investigation conducted by officers of C.I.D. at Shillong to the Economic Offences Wing, General Branch of C.I.D., Mumbai or any other investigating agency of Mumbai Police and for restraining the Special Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Shillong from taking any further step in respect of complaint lodged with the police authorities at Shillong. The Bombay High Court summarily dismissed the writ application on the ground of want of jurisdiction. 5. While dealing with such a case, the Supreme Court held that so far the question of territorial jurisdiction with reference to a criminal offence is concerned, the main factor to be considered is the place where the offence was committed. The Supreme Court further observed that mere fact that FIR was registered in particular State is not the sole criterion to decide that no cause of action has arisen even partly within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of another State. The Supreme Court further opined that a person cannot create a fake cause of action or even concocted one by simply jutting into the territorial limits of another State and by making a sojourn or even a permanent residence therein. The place of residence of the person moving a High Court, the Supreme Court held, is not the criterion to determine the contours of the cause of action in the particular writ petition. The Supreme Court further pointed out that in that case a large number of events had taken place at Mumbai in respect of allegations contained in FIR registered at Shillong and if the averments in the writ petitions were correct then the major portion of the facts alleged in FIR had taken place at Mumbai. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the Bombay High Court and allowed the writ application thereby transferring the further investigation to Mumbai. 6. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the Bombay High Court and allowed the writ application thereby transferring the further investigation to Mumbai. 6. In the present case, the alleged offence for which the petitioner has been convicted had taken place beyond territorial limit of this Court. There is also no dispute that all the respondents including office of the appellate authority are situated beyond territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the only question that arises for determination herein is whether the fact that the petitioner has been kept in Dum Dum Central Jail, West Bengal pursuant to the order of conviction can give jurisdiction to this Court for the purpose of deciding the present writ application. 7. It is now settled position of law that merely because the final order of the appellate authority has been communicated to the petitioner in West Bengal such fact cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court to decide the present case (see Union of India & Ors. vs. Adani Exports Limited & Anr., reported in AIR 2002 SC 126 , State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Swaika Properties & Anr., reported in AIR 1985 SC 1289 ). 8. In this writ application the petitioner has no grievance against inaction or illegal action of the Jail Authority in West Bengal infringing any legal or fundamental right of the petitioner. For the purpose of investigating the main dispute of the writ application as to whether the petitioner committed the alleged offence or whether on the basis of alleged offence, even if committed, the petitioner can be convicted or can be dismissed from service, no cause of action has arisen within the State of West Bengal. In other words, for the purpose of considering whether in the given facts the petitioner can be convicted or dismissed from service, no fact need be taken into consideration which had occurred within the State of West Bengal. Therefore, the fact that appeal was preferred from the State of West Bengal or that the petitioner is now placed in Dum Dum Central Jail is irrelevant for the purpose of scrutiny of this writ application. 9. Therefore, the fact that appeal was preferred from the State of West Bengal or that the petitioner is now placed in Dum Dum Central Jail is irrelevant for the purpose of scrutiny of this writ application. 9. Therefore, I am of the view that all the respondents being posted outside the State of West Bengal and at the same time the petitioner having failed to show that any part of cause of action for the relief claimed herein has arisen within the territorial limit of this Court, this Court is unable to entertain this writ application for want of territorial jurisdiction. 10. I thus, dismiss this writ application on that ground alone, making it clear that I have not gone into the merit of this writ application and dismissal of this writ application will not stand in the way of the petitioner in seeking appropriate relief before appropriate forum. 11. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Writ application dismissed.