- (1.) G. P. Mathur, J. This matter has come before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge.
(2.) THE Chief Manager, Allahabad Bank lodged an FIR against the petitioners and some others on 25-2- 1994 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, at P. S. Phneelkhana, Kanpur Nagar. THE case was investigated by CBI and a charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) Central U. P. , Lucknow. At the stage of framing of the charge, the petitioners moved an application on 28-9-1999 for summoning certain documents, which was rejected by the Special Judge by the order dated 17-4-2001. A second application moved for similar purpose on 19-5-2001 was also rejected on 17-8-2001. THE present petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 17-8-2001 and for issuing a direction to the Special Judge to summon the documents mentioned in the application moved by the petitioners. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has been constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The State Government in exercise of power conferred by Section 178 of Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898) issued a notification on 5-10-1951 directing that all Special Police Establishment cases committed to the Court of Session in any District in U. P. shall be tried in Lucknow Sessions Division. Exercising power under Sections 193 (2) of the same Code, it was further directed that the Sessions Judge, Lucknow, as Additional Sessions Judge of other Sessions Division in U. P. shall try such cases. The first part of Section 178 of 1898 Code is similar to the part first of Section 185 of 1973 Code. Section 193 (2) of 1898 Code provided that Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges shall try only such cases as the State Government may by general or special order direct them to try or as the Sessions Judge of the division by general or special order may make over to them for trial. Subsequently, another notification was issued whereunder more Courts of Special Judges were created for trial of cases wherein charge-sheets had been submitted by the Special Police Establishment (CBI) under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. It is in these circumstances that the charge-sheet in the present case has been submitted before the Special Judge (Anti-corruption), Lucknow, though the offence was committed in Kanpur Nagar. When the petition was taken up for admission hearing an objection was raised on behalf of the CBI (respondent No. 2) that as the petitioners seek quashing of order passed by a criminal Court (Sessions Judge) at Lucknow, the petition could not be entertained by the principal seat of the High Court at Allahabad. The petitioners on the authority of a decision by a single Judge of this Court in Maya Shankar Pandey v. State of U. P. , 1997 JIC 727 (All) ; 1997 ACC 871, urged that the petition was maintainable at Allahabad as the offence had been committed in Kanpur Nagar. Doubting the correctness of the said decision the learned single Judge referred the following question for decision by a larger Bench: "whether the territorial jurisdiction of the appellate and revisional Court is to be determined under the Cr. P. C. by the location of the Court which has passed the impugned order or by the place where the offence was committed ?"
(3.) AS mentioned earlier, the offence for which the petitioners are being prosecuted was committed in Kanpur Nagar, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the principal seat of the High Court at Allahabad, but they are being tried in the Court of Special Judge (Anti-corruption), Lucknow, and seek quashing of an order passed by the said Court which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The question has, therefore, to be answered in the light of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Amalgamation Order ). This Order was issued to amalgamate the High Court in Allahabad and the Chief Courts in Oudh. The history and the constitution of these Courts has been given in detail in U. P. Rashtriaya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad and others v. State of U. P. and others, 1994 (12) Lucknow Civil Decision 1026, and it will be useful to reproduce paragraphs 8 to 17 of the Reports. "8. Our Temple of Justice was consecrated in 1866 under a Royal Charter issued by the Queen Victoria, the British Sovereign, with the nomenclature High Court of Judicature for the North Western Provinces at Agra under Letters patent of the 17th March, 1866. The day was 18th June, 1866, making the birth of our Court. On that historic day six Judges-the entire complement of the Court-quietly walked in, took their seats and began the day's work as if totally oblivious of the great transition from the Suddar Diwanny Adawalat and Sadar Nazamat Adawalat to a High Court. The Indian High Courts Act, 1861, enacted by the British Parliament, gave to the Crown the authority to establish High Courts at Calcutta, Madras, Bombay and at one other place. In the year 1868, High Court was shifted from Agra to Allahabad and later came to be known as High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. 9. In 1834, the Upper Provinces were separated from the Bengal Presidency to be governed by the newly constituted Agra Presidency with its Headquarters at Allahabad Fort, but in 1836 the Presidency was superseded by a Lt. Governorship of the North-Western Provinces with Headquarters at Agra. In 1858 the Headquarters of the Government were again shifted to Allahabad. 10. Avadh, after its annexation in 1856, had been placed under a Chief Commissioner but in 1877 it also came under the jurisdiction of the Lt. Governor and the whole territory was named as 'north-Western Provinces and Avadh'. This area was named as 'united Provinces of Agra and Avadh' in 1902. In 1921, after the implementation of India Constitutional Reforms, the area came under the jurisdiction of a Governor. A Legislative Council was formed at Lucknow in 1921 after the elections of 1920 and the seat of the Government was shifted from Allahabad to Lucknow in the same year. The shifting of the Secretariat from Allahabad to Lucknow was complete by 1935 making Lucknow the capital of the State. The province was named 'united Provinces' in 1937 and subsequently from 26th January, 1950, its name has been changed to 'uttar PRADESH' (See, A Guide to the Records in the U. P. State Archives, pages 6 & 7 ). 11. In 1834, Allahabad was made the seat of Government of the North-Western Province. 12. In February 1858, Lord Canning announced the formation of the whole of the North-Western Provinces into a Lieutenant Governor's Province retransferring the seat of Government from Agra to Allahabad, however, the retransfer of the High Court followed in the year 1868. (See, The Journal of the Allahabad Historical Society, Allahabad, July, 1962, Annual number, Vol. I, page 56 ). 13. Beginning with the formation of Legislative Council at Lucknow in the year 1921, subsequently most of the important Government Offices, including the secretariat and the legislative wings, were transferred to Lucknow. (See, Gazetteer of India, U. P.) 14. On 7th February, 1858, Oudh comprising 12 Districts namely: Lucknow, Faizabad, Sultanpur, Rae Bareilly, Pratapgarh, Barabanki, Gonda, Bahraich, Sitapur, Kheri, Hardoi, Unnao, was annexed to the British Empire. Annexation of 1856, brought the British system of administration of justice with some flexibility and the highest Court of appeal, the Judicial Commissioner's Court was established at Lucknow under the Government of India Order dated February 4, 1856. 15. By the Oudh Civil Courts Act, 1879, the Judicial Commissioner was constituted the head of the judiciary. In the year 1901, United Provinces of Agra and Oudh was created. The judicial administration in the two regions of the provinces, however, continued to remain separate. Subsequently the Oudh Civil Courts Act, 1879 was repealed by the Oudh Courts Act, 1925 and the Court of Judicial Commissioner was replaced by the Oudh Chief Court with jurisdiction extending over the same area. (See, Chapter I, Clause I (2) of Oudh Courts Act, 1925) 16. The two judicial administrations wielded jurisdiction over the two separate regions of the United Provinces for many years. Though the capital of the United Provinces continued at Lucknow since the year 1921 yet the Chief Court in Oudh used to exercise its jurisdiction only in respect of Oudh area. 17. Ultimately both Chambers of the Legislature of the United Provinces presented addresses to the Governor to amalgamate the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Chief Court in Oudh and the said addresses were submitted to the Governor-General, who in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 229 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and all other powers enabling him in that behalf promulgated the Amalgamation Order, 1948 whereby the High Court in Allahabad and the Chief Court in Oudh have been amalgamated and since then they constitute one High Court by the name of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. " Chapter XIII of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P. C.) deals with the JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND TRIALS. Section 177 Cr. P. C. provides that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. But this is not the universal rule and there are exceptions to the aforesaid general provision. In different contingencies enumerated in Chapter XIII Courts having jurisdiction over a local area other than that where the offence was committed may also have jurisdiction to try the offence. Section 178 Cr. P. C. provides for a situation where offence is committed partly in one local area and party in another, or the offence is continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas. Section 179 provides for a situation where offence is committed in one area and consequence ensues in another area. Section 181 provides for the place of trial of several categories of offences like dacoity or dacoity with murder or kidnapping or abduction, theft, extortion or robbery where the property is recovered. It also provides for the place of trial for an offence of criminal misappropriation or breach of trust. Section 182 provides for the place of trial where cheating is committed by deception practised by means of letters or telecommunication messages etc. Chapter XIII deals with the jurisdiction of the Court in enquiries and trials. It does not deal with the territorial jurisdiction of Courts hearing an appeal, revision or petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. Chapter XXIX of the Code deals with the appeals. Section 374 (3) lays down that a person convicted on a trial held by a Magistrate of the First Class, Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge may appeal to the Court of Session. Section 374 (2) provides that a person convicted on trial held by a Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge or by any other Court in which sentence of imprisonment for more than 7 years has been passed, may appeal to the High Court. Section 374 (1) provides that a person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court. The different Sections in Chapter XXIX merely provide the forums of appeal and not the seat of such forums (appellate Court ). This is in contradistinction to Chapter XIII where detail provisions have been laid down regarding the territorial jurisdiction of criminal Courts in enquiries and trials. The question here is whether in the fact situation, namely, that the offence was committed in Kanpur Nagar, the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , which seeks quashing of the order passed by the Special Judge (Anti-corruption), Lucknow, is maintainable before the principal seat of the High Court at Allahabad within whose jurisdiction the District of Kanpur Nagar is situate or in the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court, which exercises jurisdiction over the district of Lucknow. This has to be answered with reference to Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order as the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are silent on the point. Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order reads as under: "14. the new High Court, and the Judges and Division Courts thereof, shall sit at Allahabad or at such other places in the United Provinces as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor of the United Provinces, appoint: Provided that unless the Governor of the United Provinces with the concurrence of the Chief Justice, otherwise directs, such Judges of the new High Court, not less than two in number, as the Chief Justice, may, from time to time nominate, shall sit at Lucknow in order to exercise in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh as the Chief Justice may direct, the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in the new High Court: Provided further that the Chief Justice may in his discretion order that any case or class of cases arising in the said areas shall be heard at Allahabad. ";