Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1107 (CAL)

Jerry B. Sumanilog v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2008-12-24

ARUNABHA BASU

body2008
Judgment Arunabha Basu, J. The revisional application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed to quash proceeding in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. V/April/2006 arising out of Haldia Police Station Case No. 62 dated 21.8.2004, under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Haldia. 2. Petitioner herein who is a Filipino national (foreigner) is arrayed as accused in connection with the abovenoted case. 3. The only point on which the present revisional application is filed is on the ground that the Court in India have no jurisdiction to try the offence and as such the proceeding against the petitioner, even though for an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, cannot continue. 4. The matter was agitated before the learned Court below at the stage of consideration of charge but the learned Court below rejected the said prayer about the lack of jurisdiction on the ground that section 2 of the Indian Penal Code makes every person liable to punishment. 5. The learned Court is further of the view that territorial limits of India extends to twelve nautical miles and as such any offence committed within the limits of such territory should be treated as an offence committed within India. The learned Court is of the view that from the materials, it is evident that ship was anchored within the limits of India. 6. In order to appreciate the rival contention, a short background of the case is required to be highlighted. 7. An offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder is stated to have been committed by the petitioner herein when he stabbed to death, the Master Chief Cook namely, ROMEO COLANRO (Filipino national) of vessel M/V NEWMAN D. The abovementioned vessel is registered at Cyprus and all the officers and members of the crews are nationals of Filippines, while the Master of the ship namely, FOSKOLIS NIKOLAOS is of Greek nationality. The occurrence as is evident from the materials available in the case diary and also from the recital in the FIR took place inside the ship when the petitioner herein as alleged stabbed to death the deceased. 8. For the purpose of the present case the following points merit consideration: 1. Whether at the time of occurrence, the ship was within the territorial waters of India? 2. 8. For the purpose of the present case the following points merit consideration: 1. Whether at the time of occurrence, the ship was within the territorial waters of India? 2. Whether in view of section 4 of the Indian Penal Code and section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure any Court in this country has any jurisdiction to try the offence? 3. Whether the trial of the petitioner for alleged commission of offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code can at all be conducted by the learned Court below? POINT NO. 1 9. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in view of the position of the ship at the time of occurrence the vessel was outside the territorial limits of this country and as both the deceased as well as the accused is a foreign national and as the vessel on which the alleged occurrence took place is registered in a foreign country, then none of the provisions of Indian Penal Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure would be applicable and as such the present trial against the petitioner, even though the offence is one under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code cannot continue either before the learned Court below or before any Court in this country. 10. In support of his contention, learned Advocate for the petitioner referred to the provisions of the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 (Act No. 80 of 1976) (hereinafter called the Act). The Act came into force to provide for certain matters relating to the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones of India. Section 3 of the Act prescribes sovereignty over, and limits of, territorial waters. The aforesaid provision is set out below: "3. Sovereignty over, and limits of, territorial waters.-(1) The sovereignty of India extends and has always extended to the territorial waters of India (hereinafter referred to as the territorial waters) and to the seabed and subsoil underlying, and the air space over such waters. (2) The limit of the territorial waters is the line every point of which is at a distance of twelve nautical miles from the nearest point of the appropriate baseline. (2) The limit of the territorial waters is the line every point of which is at a distance of twelve nautical miles from the nearest point of the appropriate baseline. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Central Government may whenever it considers necessary so to do having regard to International Law and State practice, alter, by notification in the Official Gazette, the limit of the territorial waters. (1) No notification shall be issued under sub-section (3) unless resolutions approving the issue of such notification are passed by both Houses of Parliament." 11. Sub-section (2) to section 3 as mentioned above clearly stipulates that upto an area of twelve nautical miles from the nearest point of the appropriate baseline inclusive of every point shall be the limit of territorial waters of India. 12. Section 6 of the Act prescribes Continental Shelf while section 7 of the Act prescribes exclusive economic zone. The aforesaid two provisions are also set out below: "6. Continental Shelf.-(1) The continental shelf of India (hereinafter referred to as the continental shelf) comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond the limit of its territorial waters throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin or to a distance of two hundred nautical miles from the baseline referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3 where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance. (2) India has, and always had, full and exclusive sovereign rights in respect of its continental shelf. (3) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (2), the Union has in the continental shelf,- (a) sovereign rights for the purposes of exploration, exploitation, conservation and management of all resources; (b) exclusive rights and jurisdiction for the construction, maintenance or operation of artificial islands, on shore terminals, installations and other structures and devices necessary for the exploration and exploitation of the resources of the continental shelf or for the convenience of shipping or for any other purpose; (c) exclusive jurisdiction to authorise, regulate and control scientific research; and (d) exclusive jurisdiction to preserve and protect the marine environment and to prevent and control marine pollution. (4) No person (including a foreign Government) shall, except under, and in accordance with, the terms of a licence or a letter of authority granted by the Central Government, explore the continental shelf or exploit its resources or carry out any search, or, excavation or conduct and research within the continental shelf or drill therein or construct, maintain or operate any artificial island, off-shore terminal installation or other structure or device therein for any purpose whatsoever. (5) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,- (a) declare any area of the continental shelf and its superjacent waters to be a designated area; and (b) make such provisions as it may deem necessary with respect to,- (i) the exploration, exploitation and protection o[ the resources of the continental shelf within such designated area; or (ii) the safety and protection o[ artificial islands, off-shore terminals, installations and other structures and devices in such designated area; or (iii) the protection of marine environment of such designated area; or (iv) customs and other fiscal matters in relation to such designated area. Explanation.-A notification issued under this sub-section may provide for the regulation of entry into and passage through the designated area of foreign ships by the establishment of fairways, sealanes, traffic separation schemes or any other mode of ensuring freedom of navigation which is not prejudicial to the interests of India. (6) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,- (a) extend, with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit, any enactment for the time being in force in India or any part thereof to the continental shelf or any part (including any designated area under subsection (5) thereof; and (b) make such provisions as it may consider necessary for facilitating the enforcement of such enactment, and any enactment so extended shall have effect as if the continental shelf or the part (including, as the case may be, any designated area under sub-section (5) thereof to which it has been extended is a part of the territory of India. (7) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2) and subject to any measures that may be necessary for protecting the interests of India, the Central Government may not impede the laying or maintenance of submarine cables or pipelines on the continental shelf by foreign States: Provided that the consent of the Central Government shall be necessary for the delineation of the course of the laying of such cable or pipelines. 7. Exclusive economic zone.-(1) The exclusive economic zone of India (hereinafter referred to as the exclusive economic zone) is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial waters, and the limit of such zone is two hundred nautical miles from the baseline referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Central Government may, whenever it considers necessary so to do having regard to International Law and State practice, alter, by notification in the Official Gazette, the limit of the exclusive economic zone. (3) No notification shall be issued under sub-section (2) unless resolutions approving the issue of such notification are passed by both Houses of Parliament. (4) In the exclusive economic zone, the Union has, - (a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploration, exploitation, conservation and management of the natural resources, both living and non-living as well as for producing energy from tides, winds and currents; (b) exclusive rights and jurisdiction for the construction, maintenance or operation of artificial islands, off-shore terminals, installations and other structures and devices necessary for the exploration and exploitation of the resources of the zone or for the convenience of shipping or for any other purpose; (c) exclusive jurisdiction to authorise, regulate and control scientific research; (d) exclusive jurisdiction to preserve and protect the marine environment and to prevent and control marine pollution; and (e) such other rights as are recognized by International Law. (5) No person (including a foreign Government) shall, except under, and in accordance with, the terms of any agreement with the Central Government or of a licence or a letter of authority granted by the Central Government, explore or exploit any resources of the exclusive economic zone or carry out any search or excavation or conduct any research within the exclusive economic zone or drill therein or construct, maintain or operate any artificial island, off-shore terminal, installation or other structure or device therein for any purpose whatsoever: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply in relation to fishing by a citizen of India. (6) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,- (a) declare any area of the exclusive economic zone to be a designated area; and (b) make such provisions as it may deem necessary with respect to,- (i) the exploration, exploitation and protection of the resources of such designated area; or (ii) other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of such designated area such as the production of energy from tides, winds and currents; or (iii) the safety and protection of artificial island, off-shore terminals, installations and other structures and devices in such designated area; or (iv) the protection of marine environment of such designated area; or (v) customs, and other fiscal matters in relation to such designated area. Explanation.-A notification issued under this sub-section may provide for the regulation of entry into and passage through the designated area of foreign ships by the establishment of fairways, sealanes, traffic separation schemes or any other mode of ensuring freedom of navigation which is not prejudicial to the interests of India. (7) The Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette,- (a) extend, with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit, any enactment for the time being in force in India or any part thereof in the exclusive economic zone or any part thereof; and (b) make such provisions as it may consider necessary for facilitating the enforcement of such enactment, and any enactment so extended shall have effect as if the exclusive economic zone or the part thereof to which it has been extended is a part of the territory of India. (8) The provisions of sub-section (7) of section 6 shall apply in relation to the laying or maintenance of submarine cables or pipelines on the seabed of the exclusive economic zone as they apply in relation to the laying or maintenance of submarine cables or pipelines on the seabed of the continental shelf. (9) In the exclusive economic zone and the air space over the zone, ships and aircraft of all States shall, subject to the exercise by India of its rights within the zone, enjoy freedom of navigation and overflight." 13. A careful reading of sections 3, 6 and 7 as mentioned above clearly shows that the territorial waters, seabed and subsoil underlying therein and the air space over such territorial waters form part of the territory of India and that the sovereignty of India extends over such areas. 14. The learned Court below in his order under challenge was of the view that the offence as alleged took place within the territorial waters of this country and it is required to be examined, as to how far the said finding is based on the materials available in the case diary. 15. Being directed by this Court the learned Advocate for State produced the case diary. 16. I have minutely examined the materials available in the case diary in order to ascertain whether the offence took place within the territorial waters of this country. However, before I examine this crucial point, I must point out about certain admitted position. There is no dispute that the vessel NEWMAN D is registered at Cyprus. During the course of investigation, the certificate Cyprus registry was seized by the Investigating Officer by seizure list dated 24.8.2004. The vessel NEWMAN D is registered at Cyprus bearing official No. IMO 8900476. The vessel was registered under the heading 'No. Year and Port of Registry' as under 63-2000, LIMASSOL, CYPRUS. 17. The list of crews of the said vessel is also obtained during investigation which clearly indicates that accused/petitioner herein is a Filipino national while the deceased was also a Filipino national. In fact all the persons engaged in the affairs of the said vessel are Filipino nationals while the Master of the ship is a Greek national. It is evident that the accused is not a citizen of this country. 18. In fact all the persons engaged in the affairs of the said vessel are Filipino nationals while the Master of the ship is a Greek national. It is evident that the accused is not a citizen of this country. 18. It is not clear to me as to how the learned Court below recorded the finding that the vessel was within the territorial waters of this country. Learned Court below did not discuss the materials on which he has based the finding. During investigation the Investigating Officer has prepared a sketch map but the same relates to the actual place of occurrence as to commission of offence of homicide which is inside the ship. The position of the ship is not indicated in the sketch map prepared by the Investigating Officer. 19. About the position of the ship, the statement of the Master of the vessel, namely, FOSKOLOS NIKOLAOS is relevant and it will be appropriate to set out the relevant portion of the statement of the said witness, recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:- "In answer to your question, J. FOSKOLOS NIKOLAOS, Captain of the ship NEWMAN D, nationality Greek, passport No. T 212104 place of birth-Piraeks, state that I boarded the ship NEWMAN D on 19th May, 2001 from Bedi Port, India. The ship NEWMAN D having official number IMO 8900476 was registered in the year 2000 (No. 63) in the Port Limassol, Cyprus. The owner of the ship is Boracan Maritime Co. Limited having its registered office at 36, Vyronos Avenue, Nicosia, Cyprus and the ship was built by Sanoyas Corporation Kurashiki, Japan on 10/1989. At present 24 crew members boarded the ship and except me rest ail are of FILIPINO nationality. On 16.8.2004 at 12.00 hrs. the ship anchored at Sandhead, Bay of Bengal and the location of the ship was 70 nautical miles from Haldia Port and 35 nautical miles from Sagardeep and geographic (latitude & longitude) location of the ship was 0=2059N, A=08815 E. the ship anchored at Sand head for clearance from Haldia Port and its destination was Haldia Dock Berth for loading iron ore. At the time of anchorage at Sandhead the weather condition of the sea was comfortable." 20. At the time of anchorage at Sandhead the weather condition of the sea was comfortable." 20. The above mentioned statement of the Master of the ship clearly indicates that the vessel was anchored at Sand head, Bay of Bengal and the location of the ship was 70 nautical miles from Haldia Port and 35 nautical miles from the Sagardeep and geographic (latitude & longitude) location of the ship was 0=2059N, A=08815E. 21. It is not clear to me as to how the learned Court below can arrive at a finding that the vessel was within 12 nautical mills measured from baseline. It is clear that the vessel was at a distance of 35 nautical miles from Sagardeep and as such it cannot be stated that it was within the territorial waters of 12 nautical miles which is the outer point of territory of India. This position can be further illustrated when it is round from the statement of the Master that the vessel was anchored at Sandhead for clearance from the Haldia Port, which was its ultimate destination. The vessel was supposed to load iron ore at Haldia Port. The clearance from appropriate authority to enter into the territorial waters in India is required, in order to obtain necessary authorisation for entering within territorial waters of 12 nautical miles by a foreign ship. A ship of foreign origin cannot enter into the territorial waters of India without prior authorisation and as such the vessel in question was waiting for such clearance after anchoring the ship at a point beyond the territorial waters of this country. This position was completely overlooked by the learned Court below while deciding the issue as to territorial limit of this country. 22. Case diary also contents a documents, which is the log book of the said vessel and the position of the vessel where it anchored is also mentioned in the log book, which supports the contention of the Master of the ship recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 23. Save and except, these two documents as highlighted above, there is no other materials to indicate the position of the foreign registered ship with all foreign nationals on board the said vessel. 23. Save and except, these two documents as highlighted above, there is no other materials to indicate the position of the foreign registered ship with all foreign nationals on board the said vessel. The alleged occurrence took place inside the vessel, when the vessel was anchored at a distance of 35 nautical miles from Sagardeep and as such the alleged occurrence took place outside the territorial waters of this country. 24. Learned Advocate for the State, however, argued that the offence is deemed to have been committed within the territory of this country in view of the provisions of the Inland Vessels Act, 1917. It is not clear to me as to how the said law will be applicable in connection with this case. The Act which extends to whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir is applicable to inland waters. The 'Inland Waters' is defined which means any canal, river, lake or other navigable water. Penalty under the aforesaid provision of the Act deals with offence coming under Chapter VII which deals with penalties and legal proceedings. The perusal of the offence clearly indicates that it is applicable only in respect of offence committed under the purview of the Act and does not cover an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 25. In my view the reference to the provisions of the Inland Vessels Act, 1917 is misplaced as the same has no manner of application in connection with the case under consideration by this Court. 26. In view of my above discussion point No.1 is answered against the contention of the prosecution that the alleged offence took place within the territorial waters of this country. POINT NOS. 2 AND 3 27. Both the points being interrelated are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience. I must point out that in connection with this case section 2 of the Indian Penal Code has no manner of application. The word 'every person' which according to learned Court below gives the jurisdiction of the Court to try the offence is misplaced. The plain meaning of the phrase 'every person' is that it comprehends all persons without limitation and irrespective of nationality, allegiance rank, status, caste, colour or creed. For the purpose of present discussion, section 4 of the Indian Penal Code will be applicable. The plain meaning of the phrase 'every person' is that it comprehends all persons without limitation and irrespective of nationality, allegiance rank, status, caste, colour or creed. For the purpose of present discussion, section 4 of the Indian Penal Code will be applicable. The said section is set out below: "4. Extension of Code to extraterritorial offences.-The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by- (1) any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India; (2) any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be. Explanation.-In this section the word 'offence' includes every act committed outside India which, if committed in India would be punishable under this Code. Illustration.-A, who is a citizen of India, commits a murder in Uganda. He can be tried and convicted or murder in any place in India in which he may be found." 28. The provision of Indian Penal Code in connection with any offence is applicable to any citizen of this country who has committed such offence in any place without and beyond India and secondly any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be. 29. It is clear that unless a person or any occurrence falls under the provision of section 4, the same cannot be tried in this country. 30. There is no doubt that the offence as alleged took place inside a ship not registered in this country. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner/accused is not a citizen of this country. 31. In view of my finding at point No.1, it is already decided that the offence as alleged took place beyond the limits of India. 32. Learned Advocate for the petitioner in support of his contention has referred to the decision of Supreme Court in Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2008(2) C Cr. LR (SC) 319. In this case two-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court took into consideration a case where the entire cause of action took place outside the territorial limits of this country and where the appellant before the Supreme Court was a citizen of a foreign country namely, Mauritius. 33. The foreign national was arrayed in connection with a case for allegedly causing harassment to her daughter-in-law and the case was tried by a Court in this country. 33. The foreign national was arrayed in connection with a case for allegedly causing harassment to her daughter-in-law and the case was tried by a Court in this country. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after highlighting the provision of section 4 of the Indian Penal Code and section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure held as follows:- "17. In terms of section 4 of the Indian Penal Code the Indian Courts will have jurisdiction to try an accused only if the accused is a citizen of India even if the offence was committed outside India or by any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be. Neither of the aforementioned contingencies is attracted in the instant case. Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also deals with offences committed outside India. Clause (a) brings within its sweep a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere, or by a person, although not citizen of India when the offence is committed on any ship or aircraft registered in India." The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held: "This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in Central Banh of India Ltd. vs. Ram Narain (supra), wherein it was clearly held: 'The learned Attorney-General contended that Ram Narain was at the time when sanction for prosecution was given by the East Punjab Government, a citizen of India residing in Hodel and that being so, he could be tried in India being a citizen of India at that moment, and having committed offences outside India, and that the provisions of section 4 IPC and section 188, Cr. PC were fully attracted to the case. In our opinion, this contention is not well-founded. The language of the sections plainly means that if at the time of the commission of the offence, the person committing it is a citizen of India, then even if the offence is committed outside India he is subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts in India. The rule enunciated in the sections is based on the principle that qua citizens the jurisdiction of Courts is not lost by reason of the venue of the offence. The rule enunciated in the sections is based on the principle that qua citizens the jurisdiction of Courts is not lost by reason of the venue of the offence. If, however, at the time of the commission of the offence the accused person is not a citizen of India, then the provisions of these sections have no application whatsoever.' A foreigner was not liable to be dealt with in British India for an offence committed and completed outside British India under the provisions of the sections as they stood before the adaptations made in them after the partition of India. Illustration (a) to section 4, IPC delimits the scope of the section. It indicates the extent and the ambit of this section. It runs as follows: '(a) A, a coolie, who is a native Indian subject commits a murder in Uganda. He can be tried and convicted of murder in any place in British India in which he may be found.' In the illustration, if A was not a native Indian subject at the time of the commission of the murder the provisions of section 4, IPC could not apply to his case. The circumstance that after the commission of the offence a person becomes domiciled in another country, or acquires citizenship of that State, cannot confer jurisdiction on the Courts of that territory retrospectively for trying offences committed and completed at a time when that person was neither the national of that country nor was he domiciled there." 34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that when the offence is said to have been committed in Kuwait, the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be said to have any application. 35. In this decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of conviction and sentence imposed against the foreign national by a Court of this country. 36. According to Hon'ble Supreme Court there is inherent lack of jurisdiction and as such in view of lack of inherent jurisdiction, a foreign national cannot be convicted by a Court of this country so far as the present case is concerned. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. case (supra) would be squarely applicable in this case, and as such I am of the view that the trial before the learned Court below would be illegal as because the learned Court below lacks inherent jurisdiction in view of provision under section 4 of the Indian Penal Code vis-a-vis section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with procedure as to offence committed outside India. The said section is set out below :- "188. Offence committed outside India.-When an offence is committed outside India- (a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere, or (b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it has been committed at any place within India at which he may be found: Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government." 37. The provision of section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, further supports the contention that so far as the petitioner is concerned, neither he can be said to be a citizen of this country nor it can be stated that the offence was committed in any ship or aircraft registered in India. 38. The points are answered accordingly. 39. In view of my above discussion, the trial of the petitioner, who is a foreign national cannot be conducted by the learned Court below. It is unfortunate that a Filippine national was stabbed to death by another Filippine national on a ship registered not in this country. In view of inherent lack of jurisdiction of the learned Court below, I have no other option but to allow the application filed under section 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash the proceeding, now pending before the learned Court below, so far as the petitioner is concerned. 40. In view of inherent lack of jurisdiction of the learned Court below, I have no other option but to allow the application filed under section 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash the proceeding, now pending before the learned Court below, so far as the petitioner is concerned. 40. Before I part with the discussion I must point out that in the case diary there is enough material painstakingly and meticulously collected by the Investigating Officer in support of the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner herein is prima Facie involved in a heinous offence like murder and as such the quashing of the prosecution docs not necessarily mean that the petitioner will be allowed to go scot free. He is confined in jail for the present. The judicial authority, namely, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the learned Trial Judge shall take up the matter with the Superintendent of Police, East Midnapore to shift the petitioner from his confinement in jail and to detain him in a place from where he could be handed over to appropriate authority so that the concerned petitioner and the concerned authority, after taking charge of the petitioner can deal with his case in accordance with law. 41. It is further directed that entire exercise about handing over of the petitioner to appropriate Filippine authority should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/communication of the order. Further detention of the petitioner in correctional home would not be justified as because he cannot be any more treated as under-trial prisoner. Once again I make it clear that petitioner be removed from correctional home and be detained in safe keeping under competent authority only for the purpose of handing him over to appropriate authority and such authority in my opinion should deal with the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner herein. 42. Criminal Section is directed to forward a copy of the order to the learned Court below. 43. Criminal Section is further directed to supply urgent Photostat copy of the order to the petitioner as and when applied for. 44. Case diary be returned. Appeal allowed.