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

2006 Supreme(Cal) 454

High Court Of Calcutta
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Appellant
Versus
TARIQUE AKHTAR ALIAS RAJA - Respondent
C. R. R. 1108 Of 2006
Decided On : 07/26/2006

The High Court has the jurisdiction to transfer a case from one state to another under Section 186(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when the proceedings were first commenced within its local limits of appellate jurisdiction.

Headnote:

TRANSFER OF CASE - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 186(B) - TRANSFER OF CASE FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT, 1908 - SECTIONS 3, 5 - RECOVERY OF DETONATORS FROM ACCUSED'S RESIDENCE - SEIZURE LIST - AMALGAMATION OF CASES - INTEREST OF PROSECUTION.

Fact of the Case:

In a case involving the seizure of detonators from the accused's residence in Jamshedpur, the prosecution sought to transfer the case from Jamshedpur to Kolkata, where a related case was pending. The detonators were allegedly connected to the Kolkata case, and the prosecution argued that it would be difficult to establish the charge without amalgamating both cases.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, was correct in observing that he lacked the jurisdiction to transfer the case from one state to another. However, the court found merit in the prosecution's argument that the amalgamation of both cases was necessary for the interest of the prosecution and to facilitate a smooth trial.

Issues: 1. Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, had the jurisdiction to transfer the case from Jamshedpur to Kolkata. 2. Whether the amalgamation of both cases was necessary for the interest of the prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on Section 186(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides that in cases of doubt regarding the district where an inquiry or trial should take place, the decision shall be made by the High Court within whose local limits of appellate jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced. 2. The court found that the proceedings in question were first started in West Bengal when the Bowbazar P.S. case was initiated. The Mango (Azadnagar) P.S. case was an offshoot of the Bowbazar P.S. case, and therefore, the appropriate High Court to decide on the transfer was the Calcutta High Court.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revisional application filed by the State of West Bengal and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, to transfer the Mango (Azadnagar) P.S. Case No. 38 of 2006 to the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata, for amalgamation with Bowbazar P.S. Case No. 50 of 2006.

S. K. GUPTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application has been filed by the petitioner/state praying for transfer of the Mango (Azadnagar) P. S. case no. 38 of 2006 dated 01/2/2006 of the Court of the Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Jamshedpur to the Court of the Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Calcutta and to be amalgamated with Bowbazar P. S. case no. 50 dated 31/1/2006.

( 2 ) CASE of the petitioner is that on the basis of the complaint filed by one Aloke Kumar Sarkar, S. I. of Police, attached to Anti-Terrorist Cell, detective Department, Lalbazar. Bowbazar P. S. Case No. 50 dated 31 / 1/2000 was started against the Petitioner No. 1. It was alleged in the said complaint that the petitioner No. 1, who is a resident of Jamshedpur in conspiracy with I. S. I, agents of Pakistan and with the members of lashkar-e-Toiba, a known terrorist organization, for the purpose of waging war against the Government of India and in furtherance of the said common object, the petitioner No. 1 collected arms and ammunitions and man power and he was preparing to create trouble in this country. An information was received that the petitioner No. 1 would come infront of 6, Madan Street, near Majestic Bar. Kolkata for delivering some compact Discs (CD) relating to terrorist activities of Lashkar-e-Toiba to his followers. On the basis of the said information, the complainant and others reached the locality at about 19-45 hours and when the opposite party No. 1 came to the spot he was apprehended. On search of his bag, several incriminating articles were recovered and those articles were seized. The opposite party No. 1 was arrested and on the basis of the complaint. Bowbazar P. S. case No. 50 dated 31/1/2006 was started against the opposite party No. 1. While the opposite party No. 1 was in police custody, he disclosed that he had received the detonators from New delhi and had given the same to the opposite party No. 2 for keeping the same in safe custody at his residence at Jamshedpur. Pursuant to the said statement of the opposite: party No. 1, a team of officers of Kolkata police reached the residence of the opposite party No. 2 at Jamshedpur and on search 16 pieces of detonators and other incriminating articles were recovered and those were seized under a seizure list. Those articles were seized in connection with Bowbazar P. S. case No. 50 dated 31/1/ 2006. But as the detonators were recovered from the residence of the opposite party No. 2, so the local police started a separate case being Mango (Azadnagar) P. S. Case No. 38 dated 01/2/2006 under sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act. The opposite party No. 2 was also shown arrested in connection with Bowbazar P. S. case and the articles were also shown to have been seized in connection with the said case. As the articles were shown seized in connection with Mango (Azadnagar) P. S. case of Jamshedpur and as those were also the alamats of the Bowbazar p. S. case, in order to overcome all the difficulties, a prayer was made before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur for transferring the case of records of Mango (Azadnagar) P. S. case to the Court of learned metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata for amalgamation of both the cases and for effective trial. Said application was heard by the learned magistrate on 10/3/2006 and after hearing both the sides, the learned magistrate was pleased to observe that the said prayer was not maintainable before that Court as the matter of transferring the case pertaining to transfer of the case from one State to another was not within his jurisdiction. However, liberty was given to the I. O. to pray for such order before the Appropriate Court. As the amalgamation for both the cases are vitally required for the interest of the prosecution and if that is not done then the prosecution case will badly suffer, so this revisional application has been filed on behalf of the State of West bengal praying for transfer of case: records of Jamshedpur Court to t







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
whatsapp-icon Back to top