Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 576 (MP)

Ravindra Singh v. State of M. P.

2011-05-09

G.D.SAXENA

body2011
ORDER 1. This Revision petition under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is directed against an order dated 2nd November 2008, passed in Criminal Case No. 6817/2006, by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Gwalior, returning thereby the charge-sheet for filing before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore on the ground that the main incident of the offence was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Gwalior. 2. As per prosecution case, the complainant Nand Kishore was working as security guard in Balaji Security Services, Navnit Plaza in Silver Sachora building situated on RNT Road at Indore. There being differences in the salary of the security guard and gunman, the complainant wished to occupy the post of gunman but on account of non-possessing the requisite gun-licence, he was unable to avail that opportunity. Hence, he came into contanct of the accused-petitioners Sukhendra Singh and Babu Singh Tomar, who assured him that on payment of Rs. Seven Thousand, they will manage the arms licence for him within 15 days. After that, the accused informed him to arrange the sum as settled and pay to the person concerned at Sakti Gass Agency Near Village Nenora on Sanver Road Ujjain. On second day the accused Babu Singh Tomar informed that he will also manage for him the fire Arms Gun from Bhind (MP) on payment of Rs. Eight thousand. The complainant somehow managed the laon from Jai Bharat Parspar Co-operative Institution Sikh Mohalla Indore. Then, he contacted accused Babu Singh Tomar with money. The accused delivered the arms licence issued from the State of J. & K. On doubts about the genuineness of the licence, the complainant made a contact to his friend Dr. Kundan Singh Bundela, at Indore, who also expressed doubt about the genuineness of the licence delivered by the accused, but on the advice of his friend Dr. Kundan Singh Bundela, he made the full payment for the driving licence to Babu Singh Tomar, accused. Thereafter, he on the belief of Babu Singh accused accompanied with one Ashok Mishra came to Bhind to purchase the fire arm. Ashok Mishra managed the fire arm gun for him from one old person unknown to him. Thereafter, he showed the arms licence to his Director M/s. Balaji Security at Indore, who opined that the arms licence given to him was fake. Ashok Mishra managed the fire arm gun for him from one old person unknown to him. Thereafter, he showed the arms licence to his Director M/s. Balaji Security at Indore, who opined that the arms licence given to him was fake. Subsequently, he also got knowledge from Daily News Paper "Nai Dunia" dated 27th February, 08 that near-about 2000 arms licence recovered from Bhind and issued from J & K State arc fake. So, on the advice of Shri Panidar, the Director of M/s. Balaji Security Indore, he sent the written complaint to CID Bhopal. On the basis of his complaint, the FIR was lodged by the Economic Offences Bureau, Bhopal. 3. After investigation the charge-sheet was filed by the Economic Offences Cell, at Gwalior before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction of the Economic Offences registered by EOW, Gwalior. The trial was commenced against the accused-petitioners. At later stage, the trial Judge reached on a conclusion that the most part of the incident happened at Indore, therefore for want of having jurisdiction to try the case, he returned the charge-sheet for production he fore the Court of CJM at Indore, vide the, impugned order, hence, this revision before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for petitioners contended that as per provisions under Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 where offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local area. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Magistrate is perverse and liable to be set aside. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submitted that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in passing the impugned order. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the documents on record. 7. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submitted that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in passing the impugned order. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the documents on record. 7. Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is as follows: "Section 178 Place of inquiry or trial : (a) when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed; or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas." 8. In the case of Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee ( 1997 (2) JLJ 59 = AIR 1997 SC 2465 ), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:- ''4. In this connection, Mr. Gambhir has drawn our attention to section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in particular clauses (b) and (c) of section 178. Clause (h) envisages that 'where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another" such offence can be tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any such local areas. Clause (c) contemplates that "where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas" then such offence can be tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 5. Mr. Gambbir has submitted that complaint made by the appellant Sujata Mukherjee discloses offence committed partly in one local area, and partly in another local area. The complaint also discloses that the offence was continuing one having been committed in more local areas and one of the local areas being Raipur, the learned Magistrate at Raipur had jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal case instituted in such COUl1. 7. The complaint also discloses that the offence was continuing one having been committed in more local areas and one of the local areas being Raipur, the learned Magistrate at Raipur had jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal case instituted in such COUl1. 7. We have taken into consideration the complaint filed by the appellant and it appears to us that the complaint reveals a continuing offence of mal treatement and humiliation meted out to the appellant in the hands of all the accused-respondents and in such continuing offence, on some occasions all the respondents had taken part and on other occasion, one of the respondents had taken part. Therefore, clause (c) of section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is clearly attracted. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Raipur to proceed with the criminal case. Since the matter is pending for long, steps should betaken to expedite the hearing. The appeals are accordingly allowed." 9. A bare perusal of the impugned order and the FIR clearly reveals that the offences initially began in Indore-Ujjain which were continued in Bhind. According to section 177 of CrPC, ordinarily the place of inquiry and trial is before the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence has been committed. However, according to section 178 of CrPC, if the offence has been committed within several local areas, even are where it was partly committed, the Court of that particular area would also have the jurisdiction to try the case. In the present case also, the offences were initially committed in Indore and were continued in Bhind. Therefore, clearly under section 178 of CrPC the Courts in Gwalior would also have the jurisdiction to try the case. The learned Magistrate despite noticing the said fact that part of the offence was committed in Indore which continued in Bhind, was not justified in returning the charge-sheet papers to be submitted to the Court at Indore, for want of having jurisdiction to try the case. Hence, the learned Magistrate was absolutely wrong in doing so and hence by setting aside the impugned order, this petition is hereby allowed. The trial Court is directed to proceed in the matter in the light of the guidelines issued by the apex Court in the case of Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee ( AIR 1997 SC 2465 ).