CHANDRA KANTA BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.G.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.K.Pani, learned Addl. Standing Counsel (Vigilance) for the State.

(2.) In the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have challenged to the order dated 9.5.2011 passed by the learned C.J.M., Berhampur in G.R. Case No.26 of 2009 directing transfer of the case to the court of learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur for disposal in accordance with law. Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the alleged occurrence took place at Alami Gram Panchayat under Phulbani Block in the district of Kandhamal and the learned C.J.M., Berhampur who is otherwise competent to conduct the trial of the case, instead of doing so has directed the transfer of trial of the case to the court of learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. In this respect, Mr. Pani, learned Addl. Standing Counsel (Vigilance) submits a memo along with the Notification of this Court dated 30th/27 June, 1993 which reads as follows:

(3.) The memo along with the Notification of this Court is taken on record. Placing reliance on the above, Mr.Pani, learned Addl. Standing Counsel (Vigilance) submits that there cannot be any controversy over the fact that the learned C.J.M., Berhampur is competent to try this case. Apart from the above, he submits that in support of aforesaid notification, that the learned C.J.M. is also empowered to transmit the charge-sheet of all cases (apart from P.C. Act) to the concerned Spl. Judge and in respect of other offences, he is required to take cognizance either by himself or commit for trial or transfer the said case to a "competent judicial magistrate" in the districts of Kalahandi, Koraput, Malkangiri, Nowrangpur, Rayagada, Gajapati and Phulbani. Relying on the above, it is submitted on behalf of the Vigilance Department that the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur being an officer subordinate to the learned C.J.M., Ganjam is also duly competent to conduct the trial of the case and no objection to the same ought to be entertained. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submits that while the learned C.J.M. is empowered to either try the case himself or commit for trial he has also been empowered to transfer the same to a "competent Judicial Magistrate". In this respect, it is claimed that the word "competent Judicial Magistrate" necessarily relates to the territorial jurisdiction of the various different S.D.J.Ms. to whom a trial may be transferred. It is stated that since th e entire cause of action is at Phulbani, the learned C.J.M. ought to have transferred the case to the learned S.D.J.M., Phulbani, since no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 9.5.2011 may be set aside.