Rajeshwari Prasad, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner in this case was convicted by Shri S.P. Roy, Special Judge, (East), Anti -Corruption, UP Luck -now, by his order dated 23 -12 -1966 in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1966 Under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was awarded sentence of one month's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 15/ - for the same.
(2.) THE Petitioner filed an appeal against the order of his conviction in the High Court at Allahabad on 4 -1 -1967. An application with the prayer that the appeal may be directed to be heard by a Bench of this Court sitting at Allahabad was also made. When the application came up for consideration before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, it was urged that no permission, as prayed for earlier, was necessary in this case, and that as a matter of right, the Petitioner was entitled to have his appeal heard by a Bench of this Court at Allahabad. Hon'ble the Chief Justice then directed that the matter be judicially decided. That is how the matter has come before me.
(3.) THE short question to be considered in this case is whether an appeal from the order of conviction on the basis of an occurrence which took place in the district of Varanasi but was disposed of by the Special Judge sitting at Lucknow should be heard by a Bench of this Court sitting at Allahabad? In the instant case, the occurrence in respect of which the Petitioner has been convicted took place in the district of Varanasi. The case, however, was decided by the Special Judge sitting at Lucknow. Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 by its second clause lays down that every offence specified in Sub -section (1) of Section 6 shall be tried by the Special Judge for the area within which it was committed or where there are more special Judges, than one for such area by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the State Government. The area within which the offence in the instant case was committed was within the district of Varanasi, and the Special Judge, who decided the appeal at Lucknow acted as Special Judge for the area of Varanasi in trying that case. The criterion for distribution of jurisdiction, in principle is the one laid down by Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 177 Code of Criminal Procedure provides that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a court within local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed. The question of jurisdiction, therefore, must be answered by reference to the area in which the offence was committed. That question cannot be decided by reference only to the place where the Judge deciding the case happened to sit for that purpose. In fact it is the same principle which is to be found in Article 14 of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, which is couched in the following language: 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 is it at Lucknow in order to exercise in respect of cases arising in such area 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 area shall be heard at Allahabad. In the above article, it is the area where the occurrence had taken place which has been emphasised as relevant for the purposes of deciding the question of jurisdiction. I am, therefore, of the view that the appeal which has given rise to the present application must be heard by a Bench of this Court sitting at Allahabad.;