Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. - (1.) HEARD Learned Counsel the applicant, Sri Anurag Khanna, Learned Counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the state. It is also contended that an application has been moved on behalf of the applicant on the ground that alleged offence is said to have been committed at Allahabad and designated CBI court at Lucknow not only caters to districts falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court but also to the districts falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal seat of the High Court at Allahabad and merely because CBI has investigated the matter and submitted charge -sheet before the designated CBI court at Lucknow, it would not oust the jurisdiction of Principal Bench of Allahabad and he prays that the said application may be allowed.
(2.) IT is contended on behalf of the applicants that the alleged offence is said to have been committed at Allahabad thereafter, charge -sheet has been filed before the designated CBI court at Lucknow. It is further contended that as per the settled law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the Full Court judgment rendered in the matter of Nasiruddin Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, reported in : AIR 1976 (SC) 331, in which Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that criminal case arises where the offence has been committed or otherwise as provided in the Criminal Procedure Code, that will attract the jurisdiction of the Court at Allahabad or Lucknow. In some other cases depending on the facts and the provision regarding jurisdiction, it may arise in either place. Learned Counsel for the applicants has contended that majority view of the Full Bench judgment dated 17.12.1971 of Allahabad High Court rendered in the matter of Nirmal Dass Khaturia and others Vs. The State Transport (Appellate) Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow and others, reported in : AIR 1972 All 200 had held that the expression " in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh" used in the first proviso to Article 14 of the High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, refers to legal proceedings including civil cases, criminal cases, petitions under Articles 226, 227 and 228 of the Constitution and petitions Articles 132, 133 and 134 of the Constitution instituted before the Judges sitting at Lucknow and having their origin, in the sense explained in the majority judgment in such areas in Oudh as the Chief Justice may direct. The expression "arising in such areas in Oudh" refers to the place where the case originated in the sense explained in the majority judgment and not to the place sitting of the last Court or authority whose decree or order is being challenged in the proceeding before the High Court. It is next contended that there are two designated CBI court, one sitting at Lucknow and other at Ghaziabad and how cases are filed before either of two designated CBI court is to be answered by the Learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 1 inasmuch as for certain districts the cases investigated by the CBI are being filed at Lucknow and for other districts the cases are being filed before designated CBI court at Ghaziabad but basis of classification is not clear. It is further contended that there are cases in which appellate authority sits at Lucknow and after passing the order by the appellate authority, further proceedings by way of writ or other proceedings are filed before the High Court in relation to the Districts to which petitioner/applicant belongs and where cause of action has arisen. It cannot be argued that as appellate authority had passed the order at Lucknow, therefore, jurisdiction of Principal Bench at Allahabad High Court stand ousted. Similarly in the present case, as the alleged incident had taken place at Allahabad, merely because CBI conducted the investigation and filed charge -sheet before the designated CBI court at Lucknow, it would not oust the jurisdiction of Principal Bench of Allahabad High Court.
(3.) IT is argued by the Learned Counsel for the applicants that although the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the matter of Nasiruddin (Supra), was not dealing with any criminal matter but had specifically held regarding jurisdiction with regard to criminal matter and has in clear terms held that criminal case will arise where the offence is committed. It is also argued that Hon'ble Apex Court has not dealt with the question regarding cause of action relating to criminal court but has categorically stated that criminal case shall arise where the offence has been committed, thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, the Court at Allahabad will have jurisdiction in the present case.;