STATE OF U P Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR CAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE relevant facts giving rise to this revision are that as a consequence of a First Information Report lodged by Sri K. N. Srivastava, Principal of the K. N. Government College. Gyanpur, district Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the 'college') at Police Station Gyanpur, a charge sheet was submitted against the opposite party Santosh Kumar Capoor, in the Court of the learned Magistrate at Gyanpur, for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate proceeded under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'code') and committed the opposite party to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Varanasi at Gyanpur, for trial for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the opposite party and proceeded with the trial. After the greater part of the prosecution evidence had been recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, an application was made on behalf of the opposite parjy for adjournment on the ground that he had approached the State. Government for withdrawal of the prosecution and orders were expected to be passed shortly in his favour. The trial Court allowed the application and adjourned the trial. Subsequently, the opposite party made an application before the learned Sessions Judge alleging that on the evidence produced by the prosecution, offences, if any, had been committed by him within the jurisdiction of the Courts at Lucknow end consequently, neither the learned Magistrate whp had conducted the committal proceedings nor the Sessions Court at Gyanpur where the trial was proceeding, had jurisdiction in respect of the case. A prayer was made that a recommendation be made to this Hon'ble Court for passing appropriate orders. The learned Sessions Judge held that no inducement had been made by the opposite party to the college authorities for parting with the goods, which were alleged to have formed subject-matter of the offence, at Gyanpur. He took the view that by means of a letter written at Lucknow, the applicant had induced the Principal of the College to send the two refrigerators to Lucknow for repairs and consequently it was clear that the inducement for entrusting the subject-matter of the alleged offences, had been made at Lucknow. In this view of the matter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code at the Courts at Gyan-pur, were without jurisdiction. He further held that since the property involved in the offence for which the opposite party had been charged, had been, according to the prosecution case, entrusted to him at Lucknow and had also been retained by him there; the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code had been committed at Lucknow, Relying upon Section 181 (2) of the Code, the trial Judge held that the opposite party could not be either committed for trial or tried for the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code also in the Courts at Gyanpur. In the result, the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not make any recommendation to this Court for appropriate orders but merely directed that the application made by the accused opposite party, was 'decided accordingly'.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the trial Court, the State of Uttar Pradesh has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 of the Code. It has been contended on behalf of the State that on the material on record, the commitment of the applicant to the Court of Session by a learned Magistrate of Gyanpur, was legally competent and further that the trial of the opposite party in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was legal and in order. It was urged that the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was legally unsustainable and unjustified.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party and, in my opinion, the contention of the State must prevail.