LAKHPAT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN important question of law is involved in this case, as to whether an offence committed within the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, can be tried by Sessions Judge, Kota. To dispose of this revision, narration of the facts is necessary, which are as follows.

(2.) ONE Prem Prakash Goyal is a resident of Thoon, Tehsil Nagar, District Bharatpur. On 2-1-78, he boarded 101 Up train at about 6. 45 P. M. from Bharatpur. He was to go to Nadbai, which also hes in Bharatpur, for his onward journey to Thoon. There was lot of rush in the train and Prem Prakash Goyal and his sister occupied seats in 1st class compartment. No sooner the train left Bharatpur Station, 3 boys entered the compartment and took their seats. The train stopped at Helak Station, which hes between Nadbai and Bharatpur and is also within Bharatpur District within the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, but the moment the train left Helak Station, it is alleged that one of those three boys took out a knife and at the point of knife they committed robbery. AH the ornaments, which were on the person of Meena Kumari, sister of P. P. Goyal, were taken away by the accused persons. No sooner the train stopped at Paprera Station, which too is within the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, the boys made their escape. A report was lodged by Shri P. P. Goyal and it also contained the details of ornaments etc. of robbery. During the investigation of the case, the three accused-petitioners were apprehended and the alleged stolen property was recovered from them on their informations. Thereafter, a report under Section 173, Cr. P. C. was submitted by the S. H. O. , G. R. P. Bharatpur in the Court of Railway Magistrate, Kota, and he committed the accused persons to the Court of Sessions Judge, Kota, who transferred the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kota. Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kota, an objection was raised on behalf of the petitioners that he had no jurisdiction to try the case, inasmuch as the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kota held that he had jurisdiction to try the case.

(3.) MR. Mehrish, the learned Advocate for the accused-petitioners submits that an offence can only be tried under Chap. XIII, Cr. P. C. and under Section 177, Cr. P. C. every offence ordinarily is to be enquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. He submits that merely because the jurisdiction of Railway Magistrate, Kota extends to Railway Station, Bharatpur, an offence committed within the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, cannot be tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Kota, and it was mandatory for the Railway Magistrate to have committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur for trial in accordance with law. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has repelled this argument only on the ground that this Court in Harak v. State (Criminal Revn. No. 286 of 1976) has held that the word "situate" occurring in Section 435, Cr. P. C (1898) regarding revisional jurisdiction is to be so interpreted that a revision will he under Section 435, Cr. P. C. (1898) to the Court of Session to whom the learned Magistrate is subordinate. But, to my mind, that analogy will not apply to the trial of the case. Under Section 397, Cr. p. C. (new), which corresponds to Section 435, Cr. P. C. (1898), this Court or the Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court situated within its or his local jurisdiction. Admittedly, the Railway Magistrate, Kota is having his Court in Kota City, and as such, the Court of Railway Magistrate is situated within the local jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Kota. Therefore, so far as the appeal or revision is concerned, even with regard to the cases arising within the jurisdiction of the district other then Kota District, to which the jurisdiction of Railway Magistrate, Kota extends, they will he before the Sessions Judge, Kota. So far as the trial of the case is concerned, it will be governed by Chap. XIII, Cr. P. C. This Chapter contains Sections. 177 to 189. Under Section 177, every offence ordinarily is to be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 179, Cr. P. C. will apply to those cases when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been shown and of a consequence which has ensued and such an offence may be enquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such a consequence has ensued. Section 180, Cr. P. C. will apply to the place of trial of those cases where the act is an offence by reason of relation to other offences. Section 181, Cr. P. C. relates to the place of trial in case of other offences and under Subsection (3) of this section, an offence of robbery, with which we are presently concerned, may be enquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed, or the stolen property, the subject of offence, was possessed by any person committing it or by any person who received or retained such property knowing or believing it to be stolen property. Under Section 183, Cr. P. C. when an offence is committed by or against any person or the thing on journey or voyage, the same may be enquired into or tried by a Court through or into whose local jurisdiction that person or thing passes in the course of that journey or voyage. Under Section 185, Cr. P. C. powers are vested in the State Government to direct that any case or class of cases committed for trial in any district may be tried in any Sessions Division. No direction of the State Government issued under Section 185, Cr. P. C. to the effect that the case arising within the jurisdiction of Sessions Division, Bharatpur, so fat as the jurisdiction of Railway Magistrate, Kota is concerned shall be tried by the Sessions Judge, Kota.