KUNTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are accused in Khagaul PS Case No. 11 of 2003 registered on 23.2.2003. Cognisance has been taken against them under Section 498A, 304B, 120B and other provisions of the Penal Code. The case has been committed to the Court of Sessions, Patna, registered as Sessions Trial No. 1022 of 2006 after commitment. The prayer in this application under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal procedure is for a direction for transfer of the Sessions Trial from Patna to the Sessions Court at Munger.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner urged that the deceased was married to petitioner No. 2 at Jamalpur in Munger. The alleged harassment and assault for purposes of dowry was made at Jamalpur. The deceased died at Jamalpur. The Post Mortem and cremation were also done at Jamalpur. On the admitted case of the prosecution no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Patna. Placing reliance upon Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure learned Counsel urged that the trial was required to be held at Munger within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed. Learned Counsel relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police Chennai and Anr. reported in : 2004CriLJ4180 in support of the aforesaid submission to direct transfer of the Sessions Trial from Patna to Munger.

(3.) THIS Court has considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and the materials on record. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that 'ordinarily' every offence shall be tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the place of trial where the offence is committed in more than one place. The words 'ordinarily' in Section 177 Cr.P.C. are of significance. The Apex Court in the case of Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihar reported in : 2001CriLJ1738 , held that the provision is a general one and must be read subject to the special provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code. The aforesaid judgment also took note of the fact that the word 'ordinarily' need not be limited to those specially provided for by the law and exceptions may be provided by law on considerations of convenience or may be implied from other provisions of law permitting joint trial of offences. Upholding the judgment of this Court placing reliance on Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and considering the narration of events culminating in death constituting an offence under Section 304B their Lordships held that there was a continuity of action to attract Sub -section (1) of Section 220. The facts of the Mohan Baitha (Supra) case were strikingly similar. An FIR was lodged at Bhagalpur under Section 304B, 406, 34 of the Penal Code. A telephonic message was received at Bhagalpur by the father that the victim had died while preparing milk for the child. The proceedings were challenged before the High Court on the ground that since the incident constituting the offence punishable under Section 304B had taken place at Jehanaganj in the State of Uttar Pradesh the Court at Bhagalpur lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The High Court rejected the challenge. Their Lordships held that in a given case indicating proximity of time, unity of proximity of lace, continuity of action, and community of purpose or design are the factors for deciding whether certain acts are part of the same transaction or not. A series of acts so connected together to form a part of a transaction is purely a question of fact. Section 177 Cr.P.C. is therefore not peremptory in nature nor a complete embargo.