The Lucknow Bench of the High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain revision applications against orders passed by inferior criminal courts located within the twelve districts of Avadh, as per the Amalgamation Order, 1948, Clause 14.

( 1 ) A highly vexed question whether a revision application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was (for short the code) lies before the High Court at Allahabad of its Bench at Lucknow is the subject matter of this designation. The complex question sometimes is the product of the vested interest. More often then not, the conflict of territorial jurisdiction is sharpened stark when the impugned order is passed, by a Court located in either of the twelve districts of Avadh. The controversy in turn involves interpretation in its true perspective, of the provisions of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Amalgamation Order), particularly the provisions of clause 14. The complex question has travelled more than once up to the Apex Court. This question has again been raised before this Court in the following circumstances :

( 2 ) A devil daring and horrendous crime was committed in Ravindra Puri, Jawahar Nagar Extension, P. S. Bhelupur in Varanasi city, Nand Kumar Rungta, an affluent person of considerable means, was the victim of crime. He was abducted form his offence in Ravindrapur sometimes in the noon of 21-1-1997. The obvious purposes, as was unfolded by subsequent events, was to extract substantial amount of ransom. His brother Mahabir Prasad Rungta laid an F. I. R. under Sections 364-A and 365-A of the Indian Penal Code which gave rise to Case Crime No. 19 of 1997 at P. S. Bhelupur. As usual investigation of the case dragged on. In Writ Petition No. 1932 of 1997 filed by Smt. Shanti Rungta, wife of the victim this Court ordered for investigation of the crimes by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short cbi) The CBI registered case crime No. RC 4 (5)/97 at Lucknow. S. I. C. Core Branch Delhi investigated the case and ultimately as charge sheet under Sections 364-A and 120-B, IPC was filed in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (Environmental Protection and CBI), Lucknow against the present application revisionist Mukhtar Ansari and others. Subsequently, a supplementary charge sheet was also submitted. Some of the accused were reported to be absconding. The Special Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow committed the case for trial to the Court of Session, Lucknow. The committal order gave rise to S. T. No. 8 of 1999 which is presently pending in the Court of XIVth Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow. The applicant revision is moved an application under Section 227 of the Code claiming discharge on the ground that the evidence which has appeared and has been collected during the course of investigation does not indicate that there is sufficient grounds to proceed against the applicant revisionist. By the detailed impugned order dated 10/05/1999 the plea of the applicant revisionist was rejected and he has been charged along with other accused person of the offences punishable under Sections 364, 364-A, 386, read with Sections 120b and 34, IPC. A date for evidence has been fixed in the trial. It is against the order that the applicant revisionist has approached this Court by filing the present criminal revision application under S. 397 of the Code.

( 3 ) A preliminary objection has been raised by the Section Officer/stamp Reporter of the Registry of this Court that since the order under challenge has been passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, revision application is entertainable only by the Lucknow Bench of this Court. In reply to this objection, it was submitted that earlier a Criminal Misc. Revision No. 492 of 1998 on behalf of Vijay Kumar Misra, one of the co-accused persons, in the case was entertained decided by Honble O. P. Jain, J. (since retired) who by order dates 13-11-1998 observed that sufficient evidence did not appear against Vijay Kumar Misra to foist a charge against him. It was submitted that the office failed to report that a revision application of a co-accused has already been decided by this Court and if the re