Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) THIS reference has been made by the III Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur for quashing the charge levelled by the learned Magistrate under Section 376, I.P.C.
(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, three accused Jairam Singh, Smt. Choti Bitia and Sita Ram had kidnapped a minor girl from the lawful custody of her guardian with intent to subjecting her to illicit inter course and that accused Sita Ram had subsequently committed rape on her. The learned Magistrate on the basis of the prosecution case committed the accused to the court of Sessions to stand their trial. An objection was taken by the accused to the trial of Sita Ram for the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. as the offence there under was said to have been committed at Kalpi in District Jalaun and not in Kan pur. Learned Sessions Judge relying on the case in State v. Shri Lal and others 1971 Cr.L.J. 141, held that the learned Magistrate at Kanpur had no juris diction either to take cognizance of the offence under Sec. 376, I.P.C. Qr to commit the accused to the court of Sessions in Kanpur for trial for that offence, and has referred the matter for quashing the part of the order of commitment that relates to charge under Section 376, Indian Penal Code. In the case of State v. Shri Lal (supra) a learned Single Judge of this Court took the view that the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. cannot be tried in a district wherefrom the girl was kidnapped if the rape was committed in another Sessions Division. Learned Govern ment Advocate has urged that this judgment requires reconsideration. The learned Judge considered the applicability of Section 179, Cr.P.C. and came to the conclusion that it did not apply to such a case. There can be no dispute about this proposition. The relevant section which can and does apply to a case of the nature is not Section 179 but Sec tion 180, Cr.P.C. Section 180, Cr.P.C. permits the trial of both the offences in a court within whose jurisdiction either of the acts is com mitted, Section 180, Cr.P.C.: "When an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence or which would be an offence, if the doer were capable of committing an offence, a charge of the first-mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court with in the local limits of whose jurisdiction either act was done." Illustration (C) "A charge of wrongfully concealing a person known to have been kidnapped may be inquired into or tried by the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the kidnap ping, took place."
(3.) ILLUSTRATION (c) to Section 180 indicates that an offence of rape under Section 376 could have been inquired into and tried in a court within whose territorial jurisdiction kidnapping had taken place. Even when this is so, I would have referred the matter to a larger Bench as on similar facts this Court in the case of State v. Shri Lal (1) had taken a different view, but it is not necessary to do so as the pro ceedings can be regularised under Section 526 of the Code of Crimi nal Procedure.;