MOHD MAHIR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which this application under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, given rise is short. The applicant is indicted of offence under section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. On September 15, 1985, he was taken to the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate directed that the accused be transferred to Allahabad for being produced before the Judicial Magistrate (Special) Economic Offences, Allahabad. On 30th September, 1985, the application for bail moved for the applicant-accused was rejected on merit by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special) Economic Offences, Allahabad. His application made thereafter to the Court of Session, Allahabad, came up on transfer to the Court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, who rejected the same on 7th October, 1985, under the impugned order with the observation that the jurisdiction to entertain the application vests in the Court of Session at Gorakhpur. The applicant bas thereafter approached this Court.

(2.) Learned counsel refers to the notification published on September 16, 1982, issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby, after consultation with this Court, the State Government has established a Special Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for all districts of the State with its place of sitting at Allahabad to try cases arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule appended to the notification including the Customs Act, 1962, among others. The principle well settled is that an application for bail can only be made to the court which can take cognizance of the offence in respect thereof the accused is arrested or detained vide Ghulam Mohammad v. State and State v. Sajjan Singh2 this was also the view taken by a learned judge of this Court in Ranveer Singh and others v. Deshraj Singh Chauhan and others3. It may not, therefore, be doubted that the application for bail lay before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special) Economic Offences, Allahabad.

(3.) Section 14(3), referred to in the impugned order, reads as under: Where the local jurisdiction of a Magistrate appointed under section 11 or section 13 or section 18, extends to an area beyond the district or the metropolitan area, as the case may be, in which be ordinarily bolds court, any reference in this Code to the Court of Sessions, Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall, in relation to such Magistrate, throughout the area within his local jurisdiction, be construed, unless the context otherwise requires, as a reference to the Court of Session, Chief Judicial Magistrate, or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be exercising jurisdiction in relation to the said district or metropolitan area.