HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

CRMC No. 411/2018

Reserved on 27.09.2022

Pronounced on 30.09.2022.

d

State through CBI

..... petitioner (s)

Through :- Ms Monika Kohli Advocate

V/s

Rita Devi and ors

.....Respondent(s)

Through :-

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

1

The petitioner-CBI has challenged order dated 21.12.2017 passed

by the learned CJM Jammu as also order dated 18.04.2017 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu.

2

It appears that the petitioner-CBI, after conducting investigation

into FIR bearing No. RC0042016A0001 dated 18.02.2016 for offences under

Sections 120-B/420/467/468/471 RPC registered with Police Station CBI,

ACB Jammu, presented a chargsheet against respondents No.1 and 2 before the

Court of CJM Jammu. Since some of the offences alleged to have been

committed by the accused are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the

learned CJM, Jammu committed the case to the Court of Principal Sessions

Judge, Jammu, who assigned the case to the Court of learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Jammu.

3

Vide impugned order dated 18.04.2017, the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Jammu observed that because the offences which are subject

2

matter of the challan, have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of

Sessions Judge, Udhampur and not within the territorial jurisdiction of

Sessions Judge, Jammu, as such, the said Court did not have jurisdiction to

enquire into and try the case. Accordingly, the committal order dated

23.08.2016 passed by the CJM, Jammu was set aside and the case was

remanded back to the CJM, Jammu. Upon receipt of the file by the CJM

Jammu, impugned order dated 21.12.2017 came to be passed by the said Court

whereby the case was committed to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge,

Udhampur. Both these orders are under challenge before this Court in the

present proceedings.

4

It has been contended in the petition that the CJM, Jammu was

conferred the powers of a Special Judicial Magistrate to try the cases

investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment and, as such, the said

Magistrate could commit the case only to the Court of Sessions situate in the

District where the Court of CJM Jammu is ordinarily located. According to the

petitioner, in this view of the matter, the challan could not have been

committed by the learned CJM Jammu to the Court of Principal Sessions

Judge, Udhampur and for the same reason, the impugned order passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu whereby the first committal order of CJM,

Jammu has been set aside, is also not sustainable in law.

5

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

record of the case.

6

It has been contended by Ms. Monika Kohli, learned counsel for the

petitioner that the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Udhampur is not located

within the territorial jurisdiction of the District in which headquarter of CJM

Jammu is located, as such, the learned CJM could not commit the case to the

Court of Sessions at Udhampur. She has further submitted that the CBI is a

3

Specialized Investigating Agency and the Government has conferred powers of

a Special Magistrate upon the CJM Jammu and CJM Srinagar to try the cases

investigated by the CBI, as such, the Appellate Revisional and Committal

Forums in respect of cases investigated by the CBI are mandatorily located

either at Srinagar or at Jammu. In support of her contentions, learned counsel

for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High

Court rendered in the case of State of Haryana vs. Shri Ram Niwas Birla and

another, 1973 PLR 541, judgment of Allahabad High Court rendered in the

case of Mohd Mahir vs. State of U.P, 1986 (23) ACrC 80 and a Judgment of

Orrisa Hig