Allahabad High Court
Rameshwar Prasad Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 17 May, 2016
Bench: Vijay Lakshmi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 27
A.F.R.
Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 172 of 2016
Applicant :- Rameshwar Prasad Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Murtuza Ali,Imtiyaj Ali
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.
This application has been moved to transfer Special Trial No. 124 of 2016, State Vs. Rameshwar Prasad Yadav, in Case Crime No. 10 of 2016, under Sections 7/13(1)(D)/13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh pending in the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption Court, Gorakhpur to the Sessions Court, Allahabad for disposal.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a Government Order bearing No. 444/Ch.Pu. 9-2008-31(8)/08 Lucknow dated 19.2.2008 was issued by which each and every Sessions Judge and Additional Sessions Judge was vested with the power to decide the cases related to Anti Corruption Act of his own district. It has been submitted that the applicant is presently residing at Allahabad and the distance between Gorakhpur to Allahabad is around 400 kms. Hence it is very difficult for the applicant to go from Allahabad to Gorakhpur to attend the court proceedings after covering a distance of 400 Kms. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the similar case namely Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 21 of 2016 (Om Prakash Singh and another Vs. State of U.P.) has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 27.1.2015 and this Court has transferred the case in question from Gorakhpur to Gonda. On the aforesaid ground it has been prayed that the Special Trial No. 124 of 2016 be transferred from Gorakhpur to Allahabad.
Learned A.G.A. has not opposed the transfer application.
Considered the submissions in the light of relevant legal provisions.
From perusal of the record shows that the facts of this case is different from the facts of abovementioned Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 21 of 2016 as has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant. In that case the offence in question relate to the district Gonda itself and in this case the offence in question relate to district Azamgarh and not Allahabad.
Chapter XIII of Cr.P.C. (inclusive of Sections 177 to 189 Cr.P.C. ) which is also applicable to the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act provides for territorial jurisdiction of a criminal case according to which the place of trial shall ordinarily be the place where the offence has been committed.
Sub-section 2 of Section 4 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 also provides as under :
"4(2)- 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."
There is no doubt that vide G.O. dated 19.2.2008 all the Sessions and Additional Sessions Judges have been given the power to hear and decide the cases relating to Anti Corruption Act but all the Sessions Judges and Addl. Sessions Judges have been authorised to hear the cases pertaining to their own districts only and not of any other districts. The G.O. dated 19.2.2008 is quoted below :
"mRrj izns'k ljdkj
x`g iqfyl vuqHkkx&9
la[;k% [email protected]%&iq&9&2008&31¼8½@08
y[kuÅ% fnukad % 19 Qjojh] 2008
vf/klwpuk
izdh.kZ
lk/kkj.k [k.M vf/kfu;e 1987 ¼vf/kfu;e la[;k&10 lu~ 1897½ dh /kkjk&21 ds lkFk xfBr Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1988 ¼vf/kfu;e la[;k&49 lu 1988½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu 'kfDr dk iz;ksx djds vkSj bl fufeRr vf/[email protected]'kksala[;k&[email protected]&U;k;k&2&94&[email protected] fnukad 24 Qjojh] 1995] la[;k&[email protected]&U;k;&[email protected]&[email protected] fnukad 17 ebZ] 2001 la[;k%& ih0 3355 ¼f}rh;½@11,&[email protected] fnukad 07 flrEcj 1961] la[;k&[email protected]@U;k;&2&2000&85 [email protected] fnukad 2 uoEcj] 2000 vkSj le;≤ ij ;Fkk la'kksf/kr 'kklukns'k la[;k&[email protected]&[email protected] fnukad 11 ekpZ] 1977 dks vxzlj djrs gq;s jkT;iky bl vf/klwpuk ds ljdkjh xtV esa izdkf'kr gksus ds fnukWd ls Hkz"Vkpkj vf/kfu;e 1988 ¼vf/kfu;e la[;k&49 lu~ 1988½ ds iz;ksxukFkZ leLr ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k vkSj vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k dks ml ftys ;k mu ftyksa ds fy, ftl ij o ftu ij ;s ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k ;k vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k ds :i esa vf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx djrs gSa insu fo'ks"k U;k;k/kh'k fu;qDr djrs gSaA
vkKk ls
egs'k dqekj xqIrk
lfpoA"
The use of the words "ml ftys ds fy, ;k mu ftyksa ds fy, ftuij os vf/kdkfjrk j[krs gksaA" clearly shows that the sessions judges/addl. Sessions judges have the jurisdiction over their respective district only and not on any other districts.
A perusal of all the aforesaid relevant provisions of Cr.P.C, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the G.O. Dated 19.2.2008 clearly shows that every offence under this Act shall be tried within such area where it has been committed.
None of the aforesaid provisions provides that an offence may be tried at a place where the accused resides. The applicant is an accused in the case concerned and the record shows that the trap team has apprehended the applicant red handed at Gangotri Hotel, Azamgarh. Thus the offence in question has been committed at Azamgarh and even no consequence of this offence has ensued at Allahabad. The offence is undisputedly committed at district Azamgarh and Allahabad has no concern with the offence and only on this ground that the accused-applicant is presently residing at Allahabad, the trial cannot be transferred to district Allahabad at his convenience. Prayer for transfer of this trial to Allahabad is fully misconceived and cannot be granted.
However, in wake of the G.O. dated 19.2.2008 and considering the fact that the offence in question has been committed at District Azamgarh, which is also situated at a lessor distance in comparison to district Gorakhpur, the transfer application is partly allowed and Special Trial No. 124 of 2016, State Vs. Rameshwar Prasad Yadav, in Case Crime No. 10 of 2016, under Sections 7/13(1)(D)/13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh is transferred from district Gorakhpur to district Azamgarh.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the District Judge, Gorakhpur to transmit the record of Special Trial No. 124 of 2016, State Vs. Rameshwar Prasad Yadav, to the court of Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Azamgarh for disposal in accordance with law.
Order Date : 17.5.2016
S.B.
