The jurisdiction of a court to try offenses committed in different places depends on whether the offenses are part of the same transaction and whether the court is competent to try any of the offenses.

1. Mahi Pal and Amar Pal Singh, petitioners, have filed this petition under Section. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing F.I.R. No.15 dated 28-12-1992, registered under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120-B, I. P. C., by the State Vigilance Bureau, Hissar, and the consequent charge-sheet filed under Section 173 of the Code and pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani.

2. The back-drop of the case runs like this. In pursuance of an advertisement dated 15-1-1986 made by the Haryana Public Service Commission, Mahi Pal had applied for one of the three temporary posts of Traffice Manager Class-II in the Transport Department, Haryana. Academic qualification under the "essential qualifications" prescribed for the post was Graduate of a recognised University withthree years experience in Motor Road Transport and adequate knowledge of Hindi. Mahi Pal petitioner along with others was interviewed by the said Public Service Commission on 3-9-1986. Result was declared on 10-9-1986. The name of Mahi Pal petitioner was recommended by the said Commission to the State Government for appointment to the post of Traffic Manager, and he was also intimated accordingly by letter dated 12-9-1986.

3. However, the petitioner was not appointed as such and he filed Civil Writ Petition 692 of 1987 in this Court which was allowed by order dated September 6, 1988 with a direction to the State of Haryana to appoint the said petitioner as Traffic Manager-Class II. The appointment of Mahi Pal petitioner and two others was challenged by Six other persons in Civil Writ Petition No. 5560 of 1986 and Civil Writ Petition No. 5342 of 1986. Both these writ petitions were dismissed by a Single Bench of this Court by order dated November 24, 1989 (Annexure R.1). However, while dismissing these civil writ petition, it was made clear that the observations made in the judgment would not prevent the State Government to rescind the appointment of the three persons including Mahi Pal petitioner, if after enquiry it is found that the certificates of experience submitted by them were not genuine.

4. After making detailed enquiry, the State Vigilance Bureau, Hissar, registered the impugned first information report No. 178 (Annexure P. 2) on 7-5-1993 against both the petitioners for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of the Penal Code. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet (Annexure P.3) was filed against them in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani.

5. The petitioners have challenged the registration of the F.I.R. and filing of the charge-sheet in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, on the grounds that once petitioner No. 1 was appointed in purusance of the directions given by this Court, the question of the commission of any offence by him does not arise. It has been further stated that in the other two civil writ petitions, referred to above, the stand of the State Government was that the certificate of experience filed by petitioner No. 1 was genuine and the selection and appointment had been made in accordance with law. It has been further pleaded that the Court at Bhiwani has no jurisdiction to entertain the charge-sheet in question and to proceed against the petitioner because the alleged offence had been committed at Delhi and Chandigarh.

6. In reply it has been pleaded that the certificate of experience submitted by Mahi Pal petitioner was found to be false and fabricated after detailed enquiry, that the address of the alleged Firm M/s. ESS Brothers Tourist Service, Delhi, given in the said document was a residential house and the said Firm was not in existence at all, that petitioner No.2 had made a statement that the alleged experience certificate had not been issued by him although thereafter he filed an affidavit to the contrary. It has been further stated that since petitioner No. 1 was posted at Bhiwani, State Vigilance Bureau, Hissar