- (1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri S. S. Tripathi,learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A.
(2.) THE applicant is being prosecuted in sessions division Maharajganj in S. T. No. 19 of 1995 (wrongly stated to be S. T No. 16 of 1995 in his application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. ). During the trial Prosecutrix Kaushilya P. W. 3 was examined by the prosecution and in her statement she stated that she was kidnapped from her house in village Mathuranagar Tola, Phulwaria P. S. Farenda, district Maharajganj and was taken to various places including Nepal and Delhi and while she was being so taken to various places the accused (applicant) com mitted rape upon her several times. On this statement of the prosecutrix the trial court appears to have framed charge under Section 376, IPC against the applicant. The applicant by application under Section 177/178, Cr. P. C. raised objec tion about the jurisdiction of the Court for charging the applicant under Section 376, IPC and prayed for being discharged from such offence. The trial Court rejected the application. By the present application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. the applicant prays for quashing the order of the Sessions Judge, Maharajganj dated 20th April, 1996 and also charge under Section 376 IPC dated 20th May, 1996. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the offence of rape was admittedly committed out of the jurisdiction of the Courts at Maharajganj and in view of the provisions contained in Section 177, Cr. P. C. the trial could not be held in the court having jurisdiction at Maharajganj. He contends that according to the statement of the prosecutrix (Annexure-2 to the application) the offence of rape was committed in Delhi and Nepal. Therefore, the trial for such offence could be held in Delhi and Nepal as the case may be. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is not correct. As already pointed out above, prosecutrix Kaushilya stated that the was raped while in the process of being taken to Nepal and Delhi. There is no specific mention of place where the rape was committed upon her. The place of commis sion of rape is uncertain. There is specific allegation that the offence of kidnapping and abduction was committed within the local limits of jurisdiction of Courts at Maharajganj. In view of Section 181 (2), Cr. P. C. the offence of kidnapping or abduction may be tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the person was kidnapped or abducted or was conveyed or concealed or detained. Besides this, Section 184 (a), Cr. P. C. provides that where the offence com mitted by any person are such that he maybe charged with, and tried at one trial for, each such offence by virtue of the provisions of Section 219, Section 220 or Section 221, or the offences may be inquired into or tried by any Court competent to inquire into or try any of the offences. Section 220 (1) further provides that if, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. Thus the cumulative effect of Section 184 (a) and Section 220 (1), Cr. P. C. is that when the series of offences are com mitted in the same transaction any of the courts within whose jurisdiction any one of the such offences is committed is competent to try the offence. This is also evident from illustration (c) to Section 220, Cr. P. C. which reads as follows: " (c) A entices B, the wife of C, away from C, with intent to commit adultery with B, and then commits adultery with her. A may be separately charged with, and convicted of, offences under Sections 498 and 497 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of I860 ). "
(3.) IN view of the above provisions of law there is no error in the order of the trial Court and the application has no merit. It is hereby rejected. Application rejected. .;