SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 97

2009(1) Supreme 497
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
Tarun Chatterjee and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Shri Rajendra Ramchandra Kavalekar — Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.142 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 3589 of 2006)
With
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 234 of 2006
Decided on : 23-01-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :K.T.S. Tulsi, Sr. Adv., H. Pillai, Ms. Nayna, Vijay Thakur and Senthil Jagadeesan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:B. Datta, A.S.G., P.K. Dey, B.K. Prasad, P. Parmeswaran, Aprajita Singh, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure and Anjani Kumar Mishra, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Place of occurrence rather than the place where the complaint was filed is material for deciding the territorial jurisdiction of a court.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 177 – Place of occurrence rather than the place where the complaint was filed is material for deciding the territorial jurisdiction of a court – Mere fact that FIR was registered in a particular State is not the sole criterion to decide that no cause of action has arisen even partly within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of another court. (Para 13)

        (2007) 7 SCC 640; (2007) 5 SCC 786 – Relied upon.

        (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B – A court trying an accused for an offence of conspiracy is competent to try him for all offences committed in pursuance of conspiracy irrespective of the fact that any or all the other offences were not committed within its territorial jurisdiction. (Para 16)

        AIR 1963 SC 1620 – Relied upon.

        (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 177 – Cause of action arose at Ranchi and the investigation was completed there – All records and documents were before the Ranchi court – Bombay High Court was perfectly justified in declining to entertain the writ petition. (Para 17)

       Facts of the case:

        1. In the Criminal Writ Petition, the appellant sought quashing of registration of the case R.C. Case No. 1(A)/2004 registered under Sections 120(b), 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending before the Special Judge (CBI), Ranchi, Jharkhand State.

        2. High Court rejected the writ petition with certain observations and directions.

       Finding of the Court :

        Cause of action arose at Ranchi.

       Result : Appeal rejected.

ORDER

S.L.P(Crl.)No. 3589 of 2006

1. Leave is granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1375 of 2006 dated July 5, 2006. By the impugned order, the High Court has rejected the writ petition, however, has directed the respondent therein, not to arrest the appellant for a period of six weeks, in R.C. Case No. 1(A).2004 registered under Sections 120(b), 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending on the file of the Special Judge (C.B.I.), Ranchi, Jharkhand, to facilitate the appellant to move the appropriate court for appropriate relief. It may be useful to extract the reasoning, conclusion and the directions issued by the court to appreciate the issues canvassed by the appellant. It is as under:

“From the submissions made by the petitioner’s advocate, it is clear that the Jharkhand Court seized of the matter. It is the C.B.I. Court, all papers and documents pertaining to the case mentioned above are in the custody and possession of the said court and, therefore, it will not be proper for the court to entertain this petition for quashing the proceedings.”

3. In the Criminal Writ Petition filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, the appellant apart from others, had asserted that he is the accused No. 1 in the case registered by C.B.I., SPE, Ranchi in the State of Jharkhand for the offences under Sections 120(b), 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The State of Maharashtra which is arrayed as Respondent No. 1 in the petition, through RCF Police Station, Kurla, has registered a case bearing Crime No. 250 of 1999 dated 14th October, 1999 under Sections 420, 461, 465, 468, 471, 473 476 and 120(b) of IPC and tried as CC No. 855/P/2000 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla, Mumbai, wherein the role of Kanhayalal Sharma and his son Prakash Kanhayalal Sharma is being investigated for having issued bogus and false Degree certificates to large number of students purportedly from Ranchi and Pune Universities. It is also stated that with the help of the degree certificate and the provisional certificate issued by the Ranchi University, he had joined India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC for short) as Cashier-cum-Sales Assistant by producing the aforesaid certificate issued for the academic year 1993-94 and it is also stated that until he was issued with suspension order by the employer viz. ITDC, he was not aware, that, the certificate issued by the Ranchi University was bogus/fake/fabricated. The appellamt has further stated that he has never been to the State of Jharkhand or to Ranchi for the purpose of appearing in the examination for the academic year 1993-94. It is further asserted that Kanhayalal Sharma who is the main accused in the case registered by RCF Police Station, Kurla, had opened an educational institution known as ‘Marudhar Mahavidyalaya’ operated both from Pune and Mumbai cities and the said institution has issued forged/bogus/false certificates of the Ranchi University. It has also stated that he had applied for anticipatory bail before the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi and by an order dated 22nd November, 2005, the learned Judge had rejected the anticipatory bail on the ground that appellant was not one of those appellants who had approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the Writ Petition No. 71 of 2001 and connected matters. It is further stated, that, he had approached the High Court of Jharkhand for grant of anticipatory bail and it was also rejected. It is further assertion of the appellant that there is no reason for CBI, SPE, Ranchi to launch a case against the appellant in the year 2004, of a case where inquiry had already been initiated by RCF Police Station for the very same off



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top