Back
2018 Supreme(Gau) 1391
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI AT ITANAGAR BENCH
AJIT BORTHAKUR, J.
SHRI IKEN TAO - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 19 of 2012
Decided on : 10-01-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. R. Saikia, Mr. T. Zirdo, Mr. M. Bagra, Mr. K. Lollen, Mr. L. Nochi, Mr. C.D. Thongchi, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. K. Tado, Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 219 to 223 ,1973, 462,178 to 186 and 188 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 387,506(b),212 and 34 - Arrayed as an accused - Territorial jurisdiction - Offence of Murder - Petitioner is that based on an FIR PS Case Indian Penal Code was registered and investigating officer after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet offence was alleged to have been committed by self styled Commander-in-Chief of a militant outfield called National Liberation Council of Land at within territorial jurisdiction of Court and Chief Judicial Magistrate Capital Complex and in aforesaid charge sheet petitioner has been arrayed as an accused alleging that petitioner was once a member of said NLCT and collected some amount of money at area of West Siang District of Arunachal Pradesh - Held, Magistrate within whose jurisdiction crime was allegedly committed has jurisdiction to try offence which rule is of course subjected to exceptions contained in subsequent sections and it is pertinent to be mentioned that Criminal Procedure Code says that no trial or other proceeding shall be liable to be set aside for absence of local jurisdiction unless it is clearly established that it has occasioned a failure of justice and objection regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction has to be taken at initial stage of proceeding because a lack of territorial jurisdiction does not render trial to nullity and apart from above at stage of framing of charges instituted on a police report Court must confine itself to documents referred to in Criminal Procedure Code and all that is required at - Petitioner cannot be taken for first time before this Court and it is further noticed that other charge sheeted accused persons have not been impeded in instant petition so as to enable this Court to give them opportunity of being heard in matter and with direction to petitioner to raise his grievances before Court below and return LCR along with a copy of this judgment and order - Petition is dismissed
AJIT BORTHAKUR, J.
1. Heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. Tado, learned Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh.
Perused the relevant records and the case law cited by the petitioners' side.
2. By this petition, filed under section 482 CrPC, 1973 the petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceeding of GR Case No.141/2009, under Sections 387/506/34 IPC, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Capital Complex, Yupia (corresponding to Itanagar PS Case No.73/2009).
3. The contentions of the petitioner is that based on an FIR, dated 27.04.2009, Itanagar PS Case No.73/2009, under Sections 387/506/34 IPC was registered. The investigating officer, after completion of investigation, submitted the charge sheet No.58/2012, dated 02.04.2012, wherein the offence was alleged to have been committed by self styled Commander-in-Chief of a militant outfield called 'National Liberation Council of Tani Land' (for short, 'NLCT') at Itanagar, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia. In the aforesaid charge sheet, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused alleging that the petitioner was once a member of the said NLCT and collected some amount of money at Likabali area of West Siang District of Arunachal Pradesh.
4. According to the petitioner, even if the entire prima facie allegations and materials collected during investigation are taken to be true in their face value, the same does not constitute and make out any case against the petitioner, inasmuch as, even if, for a moment the petitioner is assumed to be a member of NLCT, the same does not ipso facto make the petitioner liable for any criminal offence committed by any member and members of the organization, unless there is any material to show the involvement of the petitioner in the case and more so, the said NLCT is not a notified banned organization. The petitioner has further contended that if admitted that he has collected some amount of money at Likabali area of West Siang District of Arunachal Pradesh, then also, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Capital Complex, Yupia has no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences and try the case.
5. Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material, oral and documentary, to even connect the petitioner remotely with the alleged offences, under Sections 387/506/34 IPC, as charge sheeted whereupon, GR Case No.141/2009, has been initiated and there is no territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Capital Complex, Yupia to try the petitioner. According to Mr. Saikia, no reasonable man, properly instructed in law can prima facie come to a finding, on the basis of the materials available on the record that there are grounds for presuming that the petitioner has committed the aforesaid offences and be adequately punished. However, the learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the legal possession as emerged on prima facie materials collected by police during investigation and taken cognizance of the same against the petitioner.
6. Mr. K. Tado, learned Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh submits that the petitioner has based his contentions on the prima facie evidence collected by the investigating officer during investigation and relevant laws thereto, which the learned Court below is yet to consider and arrive at a decision, as the case has not yet been taken up for hearing, on consideration of charges. Mr. Tado further submits that the accused petitioner has been charge-sheeted under Sections 387/506(b)/212/34 IPC read with section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act along with 24(twenty four) others, which offences are being prima facie of very serious nature need to be considered in the context of evidence, oral and documentary, collected by the investigating officer of the case and as such, the matter needs to be remanded back to the learne
