Honble VERMA, J. - This application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. was initially filed for grant of anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. However, when the matter was being argued finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that he may be permitted to treat this petition as one filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. In the circumstances of the case, I permitted him to do so. Hence, the application has been heard under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. It may be so registered by the office.

(2). Now, the factual matrix. The petitioner is a resident of Sojat City within territorial limits of Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat exercising jurisdiction in Sessions Division, Pali. The petitioner apprehended his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No. 88 of 1993 of P.S. Fatehpur, for offences under Sections 302, 304, 328 I.P.C. read with Sec. 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. Hence, he moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter the Code) before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat. Admittedly, P.S. Fatehpur did not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat but fell within the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Sikar. By the impugned order dated 4.12.1993, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat dismissed the application in limine, on the short ground that he had no jurisdiction to hear the application and it was Sessions Judge, Sikar, who alone was competent to hear the application.

(3). By the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness of the aforesaid order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat and submits that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat did possess jurisdiction to hear the application of the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner apprehended his arrest within the jurisdiction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. By declining to hear the application on merits, the learned Judge refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law and thus committed grave illegality. Hence, this Court must intervene and direct the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to rehear the application of the petitioner and decide it on merits.

(4). Learned Public Prosecutors Servashri K.L. Thakur and Lalit Kawadia have vehemently opposed the petition and have raised following contentions:

(i) This Court has no jurisdiction to hear this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as the offence out of which the petition arises, was committed within the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Sikar falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Jaipur Bench of this Court. Hence, the petition could not have been filed at Jodhpur but could have been filed only at Jaipur.

(ii) Powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. are exceptional powers and cannot be exercised, when an alternative remedy is available under the law. In this case, petitioner could have very well moved art application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. before Sessions Judge, Sikar.

(iii) Petitioners learned counsel is wrong in contending that a learned Judge exercising jurisdiction in Sessions Division Pali had territorial competence to hear the application even though the offence to which it pertained was committed within the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Sikar.

(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner has controverted all the aforesaid contentions.

(6). I have carefully considered the rival contentions and have given my earnest consideration to them. First of all, I shall consider the contention that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear this petition and the petition should have been filed at Jaipur Bench. The contention is based upon decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Virendra Dangi vs. Union of India and Ors. (1) and more particularly the provisions of the Presidential order dated 8.12.1976 as also another Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Shri Ram Rakh Vyas vs. The Union of India (2). This Presidential order reads as follows:

"MINISTRY OF LAW, JUSTICE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS

(Department of Justice)

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 8.12.1976

G.S.R

Click Here to Read the rest of this document