UMA SHANKAR HARI NANDAN AHIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Criminal revisions and the special appeal mentioned above have been laid before this Bench for the decision of the question whether the Criminal revisions are competent to be heard at Lucknow and whether Writ Petition No. 193 of 1968 out of which special appeal no. 117 of 1969 arises was wrongly rejected by Sahgal. J. on the ground that the Lucknow Bench could not entertain it.

(2.) THE Criminal Revision No. 396 of 1966 is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge. Lucknow, dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant challenging his conviction under Sections 120-B and 420, I. P. C. and the sentences awarded under those provisions by the Special Magistrate posted at Lucknow. The special Magistrate whose court is located at Lucknow and who tried the case has been specially empowered to try all such cases within the State of Uttar Pradesh. This Court has issued notice to the applicant in Criminal Revision No. 396 of 1966 as to why his sentence should not be enhanced. The proceedings arising out of that notice have been separately numbered as Criminal Revision No. 316 of 1968.

(3.) WRIT Petition No. 193 of 1968 was filed by Fateh Bahadur Lal who was serving in the seed store at Phoolpur in the district of Azamgarh. He was put under suspension with immediate effect and all ached to District Agriculture Officer, Azamgarh. The writ petition was directed against the order of suspension. A preliminary objection was taken before Sahgal, J. , that the Lucknow Bench had no jurisdiction to hear the writ petition inasmuch as the order of suspension was not passed by an authority who resided in the area constituting Oudh. It was contended that the petitioner was put under suspension under the orders of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Gorakhpur, dated 12-71967, while the petitioner was posted at Phoolpur in Azamgarh District. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the finding that it was not competent before -the Lucknow Bench. The respondents to the writ petition were (1) State of Uttar Pradesh through the Director of Agriculture, U. P. , Lucknow, (2) District Agriculture Officer, Azamgarh, and (3) Deputy Director of Agriculture Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur.