ORDER : Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 9.2.2011 passed by learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in Case No. 4-5/7 of 98, titled Stte v. Shiv Lal and others, whereby challan having been filed by petitioner-State against respondents-accused under S.120B, 109, 409, 420, 467, 409, 471A, 467, 201 read with S.120B and 109 IPC and S. 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, came to be returned on account of territorial jurisdiction, petitioner State has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Ss.397 and 401 IPC, praying therein to set aside impugned order dated 9.2.2011 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Limited, Azadpur New Sabji Mandi, Delhi sanctioned loans, overdrafts and CC Limits to various persons and firms. Since certain irregularities were found to have been committed by bank officials, while disbursing loans, overdrafts and CC Limits, to various firms, Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Limited Shimla, lodged an FIR at Police Station Enforcement, South Zone, Shimla. Police after having conducted investigation, presented Challan in the court of learned Special Judge (Forests) Shimla against the respondents-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) under the aforesaid provisions. During the pendency of the trial before learned court below at Shimla, one of the accused namely Parmil filed an application praying therein to return the Challan for presenting in the competent court of law at Delhi. Learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla vide order dated 9.2.2011 allowed the aforesaid application and returned the Challan to the petitioner-State for being presented to the competent court of law, in accordance with law. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-State has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order and direct learned Special Judge (Forests) to proceed with the case. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order, this court finds that there is no dispute inter se parties that the Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Limited opened its branch at New Sabji Mandi, Azadpur, New Delhi. It is also not in dispute that the said branch sanctioned loans/ overdrafts/ CC Limits to various firms and persons, which were found to have been sanctioned in violation of the rules. It is also not in dispute that the said branch sanctioned loans/ overdrafts/ CC Limits to various firms and persons, which were found to have been sanctioned in violation of the rules. After having found certain illegalities and irregularities allegedly committed by the bank officials, Head Office of the Bank at Shimla lodged FIR No. 53 of 1994 against the accused named in the FIR, who are respondents herein, alleging therein that they, in connivance with bank officials, obtained loans, CC Limits and facility of overdraft on the basis of forged documents. Police, after completion of investigation presented challan in the court of learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, which vide order dated 9.2.2011, returned the Challan to the State for being presented to the competent court of law at Delhi. 4. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently argued that since the head office of the Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Limited is situate at Shimla and necessary permission with regard to sanctioning of loans, overdrafts and CC Limits was given by the officers sitting in Head Office at Shimla, FIR in question rightly came to be lodged at Shimla. He further argued that since there is overwhelming evidence on record suggestive of the fact that loan amount and CC limits sanctioned from Branch at Delhi were issued with prior approval of authorities sitting at Shimla and as such, court at Shimla has jurisdiction to try the offences alleged to have been committed by the respondents. He further argued that weekly and monthly statements of transactions of Azadpur Branch used to be sent to the head office of the Bank at Shimla. He submitted that since part of cause of action has arisen at Shimla, court at Shimla has jurisdiction to try the case. While inviting attention of this court to provisions of S. 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Mr. Bhatnagar, submitted that the present case can be tried at a place, where conspiracy was hatched. Lastly he invited attention of this Court to judgment dated 14.7.2008 passed by Co-ordinate Bench in Cr. While inviting attention of this court to provisions of S. 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Mr. Bhatnagar, submitted that the present case can be tried at a place, where conspiracy was hatched. Lastly he invited attention of this Court to judgment dated 14.7.2008 passed by Co-ordinate Bench in Cr. Revision No.1 of 2007 alongwith 2 and 3 of 2007 titled State of HP v. Amar Dutt and another to demonstrate that in similar facts and circumstances, court at Shimla was held to have jurisdiction and competence to try the criminal case lodged against the accused named in the FIR in that case. 5. Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Mr. B.S. Chauhan and Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Senior Advocates duly assisted by Mr. Ajay Kochhar and other advocates, appearing for the respondents, while supporting the impugned order passed by learned court below submitted that since no cogent and convincing evidence ever came to be placed on record that the officials sitting in head office at Shimla hatched criminal conspiracy and the loans/CC Limit and overdraft were issued at their instructions, no offence, if any, punishable under aforesaid provisions can be said to have been committed by the respondents within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts at Shimla. While making this court peruse provisions of S. 181(4) CrPC, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that a person can be tried for alleged commission of offence in the court within whose jurisdiction, he /she allegedly committed the main offence. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that since there is no dispute that the loans/CC Limit and overdrafts were issued by the officials of Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Limited Branch situate at Delhi, fraud if any committed by the officials and other accused named in the FIR, while granting loans/ CC Limit and overdrafts at Delhi cannot be tried at Shimla and no illegality can be said to have been committed by learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, while returning the Challan to be presented in the competent court of law.. 6. Before ascertaining the genuineness and correctness of the rival submissions having been made by learned counsel for the parties vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the order impugned in the instant proceedings, this court deems it fit to take note of S. 181(4) CrPC and Sections 4 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 7. 6. Before ascertaining the genuineness and correctness of the rival submissions having been made by learned counsel for the parties vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the order impugned in the instant proceedings, this court deems it fit to take note of S. 181(4) CrPC and Sections 4 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 7. Bare perusal of S. 181 (4) CrPC clearly reveals that any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person. 8. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that the loans, CC Limits and overdraft facilities were issued in favour of respondents/accused by the officials of Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Limited at Delhi and amount advanced in terms of aforesaid facilities was to be returned to branch at Delhi and not at Shimla. It is not the case of the prosecution that the orders granting loans and issuing CC Limits were passed by authorities at Head Office Shimla, rather prayer to advance loan and issue CC Limit was allegedly made by accused to the Branch Manager, Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Limited, Azadpur New Delhi. Since subsequently loans, Cc limits and overdraft facilities were alleged to have been found issued in violation of rules and on the strength of forged documents, case if any, under aforesaid provisions could be filed before competent court of law at Delhi, under whose jurisdiction, branch of Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Limited Azadpur fell. 9. S. 4(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act clearly speaks that every offence specified in sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be tried by the special Judge for the area within which it was committed, or, as the case may be, by the special Judge appointed for the case, or, where there are more special Judges than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government. 10. Since in the case at hand, alleged offence has been committed within the jurisdiction of court at Delhi, it is not understood how case at Shimla could be registered against the accused named in the FIR. 10. Since in the case at hand, alleged offence has been committed within the jurisdiction of court at Delhi, it is not understood how case at Shimla could be registered against the accused named in the FIR. 11. Otherwise also, S.4(2)of Prevention of Corruption Act cannot override the provision of jurisdiction provided under the Code because, amongst four sections of aforesaid provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act only first and the last are tagged with non-obstante words, “notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure” and in case sub-section 2 is freed from non-obstante words, it would show that provisions of Code can as well be read with that sub-section. 12. Otherwise also provisions of Ss.178 to 180 CrPC, prescribe different courts having domain over different local area having concurrent jurisdiction to enquire into or try the offence and trial is permissible in any one of them. 13. Reading of S.4(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act shows that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigation, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences, meaning thereby that if the Prevention of Corruption Act has stipulated any place for trial of the offence under that Act, the provisions of the Code would stand displaced to that extent in regard to the place of trial. Moreover, when offence under S.3(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act is committed, the sole determinative factor for trial of the place is the place, where the offence was committed. 14. Reliance placed by learned Additional Advocate General on judgment dated 14.7.2008 passed by Co-ordinate Bench in Cr. Revision No. 1 of 2007 titled State v. Amardutt and another is wholly misplaced because bare perusal of judgment supra clearly reveals that normally the offence of criminal breach of trust should be tried by the court of area where it was committed. However, when it is not clear where the offence was committed, then court having jurisdiction over area, where accounting would be done, would also have the jurisdiction. 15. However, when it is not clear where the offence was committed, then court having jurisdiction over area, where accounting would be done, would also have the jurisdiction. 15. However, in the case at hand it is clear that offence was committed in the jurisdiction of court at Delhi and there is no material on record to suggest that accounting qua the loan disbursed in favour of accused named in FIR by Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Limited Azadpur is/was accountable at Shimla and hence, it cannot be said that some part of offence was committed at Shimla. 16. A Co-ordinate Bench of this court in case supra, having taken note of the fact that application for return of Challan on the ground of territorial jurisdiction was filed at fag end of trial rejected the prayer of applicant for return of Challan to be presented in the competent Court of law. In that case, attention of court was invited to S. 462(2) CrPC, which provides that no finding, sentence or order of any Criminal Court shall be set aside merely on the ground that the inquiry, trial or other proceedings in the course of which it was arrived at or passed, took place in a wrong sessions division, district, sub- division or other local area. 17. Since in that case, trial had commenced and 26 prosecution witnesses stood examined, Co-ordinate Bench of this court did not accept prayer of applicant in that case for return of Challan to be filed in competent court of law. 18. Since in the case at hand, trial is yet to commence, provisions contained under S. 462 CrPC cannot be made applicable as has been prayed for by learned Additional Advocate General. In the instant case, charges are yet to be framed and as such, no prejudice if any would be caused to either of parties, in case, Challan as has been ordered to be returned is allowed to be presented to competent court of law at Delhi. 19. Otherwise also, Hon'ble Apex Court in CBI v. Braj Bhushan Prasad, (2001) 9 SCC 432 has held as under: “38. In this context it is useful to refer to Section 181 of the Code which falls within Chapter XIII, comprising of provisions regarding jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. Section 181 pertains to place of trial in case of certain offences. In this context it is useful to refer to Section 181 of the Code which falls within Chapter XIII, comprising of provisions regarding jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. Section 181 pertains to place of trial in case of certain offences. Subsection (4) thereof deals with the jurisdiction of the courts if the offence committed is either criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust. At least four different courts have been envisaged by the sub-section having jurisdiction for trial of the said offence and any one of which can be chosen. They are: (1) the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed; (2) the court within whose local jurisdiction any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received; (3) the court within whose local jurisdiction any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was retained; and (4) the court within whose local jurisdiction any part of the property which is subject of the offence was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused.” 20. In the case at hand, offence has been allegedly committed by the respondents at Delhi, where loans/CC Limits and overdraft limits were availed on the basis of forged documents and the amount so received by the respondents was to be accounted for at Delhi Branch of the Bank, as such, court at Delhi has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and not the court at Shimla. Therefore, there is no illegality committed by the learned Court below, while returning the Challan to the petitioner for filing the same before competent Court of law at Delhi. 21. Consequently in view of above, this court finds no merit in the present petition and same is dismissed alongwith all pending applications.