NASIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition was presented before us on 1 - 4 -1998 and upon our direction was to be put up on the next day. On that day directions were issued calling upon the respondents to come up with counter -affidavit. The petitioner was directed to file rejoinder affidavit there ­after and the matter was directed to be listed on 6 -5 -1998. A further direction was given to the effect "Subject to his co -opera ­tion in the investigation, the petitioner may not be arrested in case Crime No. 358 of 1997 under Sections 419 and 420, LP.C. and 7/13, Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, till further orders."

(2.) ON 2 -4 -1998 itself, after the aforesaid order was passed, Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned A.G. A, made submissions before us touching the jurisdictional point as also the maintainability of the petition. We, thus, directed the matter to come up on 3 -4 -1998 subject to information to Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The matter could be finally heard, on the question of jurisdiction and maintainability of the prayers, on 13 -4 -1998.

(3.) THE learned A.G.A. submitted that the incident for which the F.I.R. was lodged took place within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of this High Court and the order under Section 83, Cr. PC. was passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow, and the petition was not at all maintainable at Allahabad. It was further stated that there had also been an order under Section 82, Cr. P.C. issuing a proclamation against the petitioner depicting him as an absconder and this order was challenged in an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. before the Lucknow Bench, which is pending.