- (1.) HEARD Sri Rajul Bhargava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Counsel for Central Bureau of Investigation (respondent No. 1), learned A. G. A., appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Yashwant Verma, erstwhile Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U. P. and now learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Raghav Nayar,
(2.) THE instant application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. was filed by the applicant, Paritosh Kumar before this Court for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 13 of 2011; State Versus Rajesh Kumar Gupta and others arising out of chargesheet dated 31.10.2011 laid in RC 0062009A0005 of 2009, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B IPC and Section 13 (1) r/w (i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P. S. C. B. I., A. C. B., Lucknow pending in the court of Special Judge (Anti Corruption) Ist, Lucknow. In the six other connected applications prayer made is either for quashing of the proceedings or for clubbing the criminal proceedings under the provisions of Section 220 Cr. P. C. The application in hand along with the connected matters was assigned to Hon'ble R. D. Khare, J. vide order dated 1.3.2012 passed by Hon'ble Chief Justice. It is noteworthy that Hon'ble R. D. Khare, J. had earlier vide order dated 29.9.2011 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 32256 of 2011; Shiv Pratap Singh and others Versus Superintendent of Police, C. B. I. / Acb, Lucknow and another held that the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench of Allahabad High Court would not be ousted on account of the police report being filed before the Special Judge, C. B. I. Court constituted at Lucknow in respect of the offences arising out of those districts which were beyond the limits of territorial jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench of this Court and it would be open to the litigants to institute their cases either at the Principal Bench at Allahabad or the Lucknow Bench. When the present case along with other connected matters came up for hearing before Hon'ble R. D. Khare, J., it was brought to the notice of His Lordship that another single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Jayashree Tiwari, J.) in Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. No. 32993 of 2011; Mohd. Yasir Versus State of U. P. and another had vide order dated 6.2.2012 taken a view different from that expounded by Hon'ble R. D. Khare, J. in Criminal Misc. application No. 32256 of 2011; Shiv Pratap Singh and others Versus Superintendent of Police, C. B. I. / Acb, Lucknow and another. Hon'ble R. D. Khare, J. thereafter released the present case and the connected matters by his order dated 14.3.2012. Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 16.3.2012 nominated Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. to hear this case and the connected matters for returning his opinion on the issue in view of he conflicting decisions of two single Judges of this Court. The present reference to this Full Bench arises pursuant to an order dated 9.7.2012 passed by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. in this case doubting the correctness of the judgements rendered by two Division Benches of this Court in Sanjay Somani Versus State of U. P. reported in 2002 JIC 1 913 and Dr. Balram Dutt Sharma and etc. Versus State of U. P. reported in 1999 Cr. L. J. 3396 respectively in the light of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Nasiruddin Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal reported in (1975) 2 SCC 671 and U. P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow Versus State of U. P. and others reported in (1995) 4 SCC 738.
(3.) HON 'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. framed the following questions in the reference order to be considered by a larger Bench: 1. The Amalgamation Order, 1948 is a special law hence whether territorial jurisdiction of the two Benches of the Allahabad High Court has to be decided in view of the provision of clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, as interpreted, in case of Nasiruddin, by the Apex Court or in view of the notification of State Government with regard to the place of sitting of Special Judge, CBI ? 2. Whether decisions of the two Division Bench of this Court in case of Sanjay Somani and Dr. Balram Dutt Sharma deciding the territorial jurisdiction, by the location of the court, which has passed the impugned order or where the proceeding is pending, are against the object and provision of clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order and against the judgement of the Supreme Court in cases of Nasiruddin and para 14 of U. P. Rashtriya Chini Mill's case ? ;