- (1.) By means of the present petition, the petitioners have invoked the procedures of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for the relief of quashing the proceedings pending in the Court of Spl. Judl. Magistrate, Dehradun in Crl. Case No. 169 of 1980 under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 471 and 467, I.P.C. A brief summation of the facts as are relevant for resolution of the controversy involved in the case on hand are that upon a written complaint dated 27-5-1972 by Sri R. M. Pradhan, Manager (Advance) Central Bank of India, Bombay addressed to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation,New Delhi, the matter was investigated by the Dy. Supdt of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation Special Police Establishment, E.O.W. New Delhi and it was unravelled that "M/s. Gangadhar Ram Chandra had withdrawn through cheques which were credited to their account by the Central Bank of India, Agra, on different dates, against the forged bills as well as those bills they had never intended to be retired at the destination stations and thereby received amounts totalling to Rs. 21,60,008.00 by deceitful and dishonest means". The investigation thus culminated in the submission of the charge-sheet dated 24-1-1975 in the Court of Chief Judl. Magistrate, Lucknow, arraying applicants and five others for offences punishable under Sections 120-B/420/471/467, I.P.C. The charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Chief Judl. Magistrate Lucknow in view of the fact that the State Govt. had, vide notification No. 1592/VII-A.N. 208 of 1974 dated 20/04/1974, established a common Court of Judl. Magistrate, Ist Class with its place of sitting at Lucknow for enquiry, trial and committal to the Court of Session, of all such cases arising in any local area within the State of U.P. in which the investigations were made and/or charge-sheet filed by the Special Police Establishment constituted under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and by another notification No. 91/Admn. B dated 7/05/1974, this Court in exercise of powers vested in it under Section 11(2) of the Code of Crl. Procedure, 1973, appointed Sri Rama Kant Roy, Chief Judl. Magistrate, Lucknow as Judl. Magistrate Ist Class clothing him with power of enquiry/trial/committal to the Court of Session, of all such cases as aforesaid for all the districts in Uttar Pradesh. Later on, the jurisdiction of the Chief Judl. Magistrate Lucknow to enquire, try or commit all the offences to the Court of Session was split up by constituting another Court of Spl. Judl. Magistrate at Dehradun for specified areas and since the area in relation to which the offences in the instant case were indulged in, was apportioned to the Court of Spl. Judl. Magistrate at Dehradun, the case stood transferred to the Court at Deharadum from Lucknow. The petitioners, it is worthy of notice, are the partners and/or otherwise associated with the withdrawal of the money as afresaid of M/s. Gangadhar Ram Chandra.
(2.) Sri D. N. Misra, counsel appearing for the applicants canvased the legality of both the Courts of Special/Chief Judl. Magistrates at Dehradun and Lucknow, urging that all the proceedings that surfaced either in the Court of Chief Judl. Magistrate Lucknow or the Spl. Judl. Magistrate at Dehradun were tainted with illegality besides being beyond the periphery of jurisdiction and as such, liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel propounded that the offence was allegedly indulged in within the local area of Judl. Magistrate at Agra and therefore, the Chief Judl. Magistrate, Lucknow or the transferee Court of Spl. Judl. Magistrate at Dehradun had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences. The learned counsel has reinforced his submission by placing credence upon a decision of this Court in T. S. Bajpai v. K. K. Ganguly, 1976 Cri LJ 514, where it has been held that under Section 11(1) of the Code of Crl. Procedure, a common Court of Judl. Magistrate of Ist Class or of second class for all the districts of Uttar Pradesh with its place of sitting at Lucknow, to try or enquire into or commit to the Court of Session, all such cases arising in any local area within the State of Uttar Pradesh in which investigations are made or charge-sheets filed by the Special Police Establishment, New Delhi constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, could not be established by a notification of the State Govt. and under Section 11(2) read with Section 13 of the Code of Crl. Procedure and the High Court also could not appoint Presiding Officer of such Court for more than one district in view of the fact that Section 11(1) of the Code envisages separate Courts of Judl. Magistrate of Ist Class or of the second class for every district. It was held that since the offence under Section 409, I.P.C. in that case was perpetrated in the district of Etawah, the trial of the accused in that case could only take place in the Court of Judl. Magistrate at Etawah under Section 177, Cr.P.C. and not in the Court of Chief Judl. Magistrate Lucknow. The learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in A. R. Antuley v. R. S. Naik, AIR 1988 SC 1531. Sri Girdhar Nath, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. parties repudiated the submissions made by Sri D. N. Misra, and urged that in view of the amendment made in the Code of Crl. Procedure by Act No. 45 of 1978, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applications are no longer tenable.
(3.) I have bestowed my anxious considerations on the submissions advanced at the bar. Section 11(1) of the Code of Crl. Procedure 1973 as it stood before its amendment by Act 45 of 1978, envisaged establishment of Courts of Judl. Magistrates of the Ist Class and of the second class in every district, but the proviso inserted to sub-section (1) of Section 11 by Section 3 of Act 45 of 1978 w.e.f. 18-12-1978, clearly provides that the State Govt. may, after consultation with the High Court, establish for "any local area" one or more special Courts of Judl. Magistrates of the 1st Class and of the second class to try any particular case or particular class of cases and where any such special Court is esablished, no other Court of Magistrate in the local area shall have jurisdiction to try any case or class of cases for the trial of which such special Court of Judl. Magistrate has been established. Prior to insertion of the proviso to sub-section (1) by Act 45 of 1978, sub-section (1-A) of Section 11 was inserted by S. 3 of U.P. Act No. 16 of 1976 with effect from 30-4-1978 and it provides that the State Govt. may likewise establish as many Courts of Judl. Magistrates of Ist class and of the second class in respect to particular cases or to a particular class of cases, or in regard to cases generally, in "any local area" and by Section 4 of the said U.P. Act 1976 the words "in any local area" were substituted in place of words "in any district" in S. 13 of the Code. The notification by which the Court of Judl. Magistrate of Ist Class having its place of sitting at Lucknow was established to enquire, try or commit to the Courts of Session, the offences investigated by Special Police Establishment, New Delhi stood validated by S. 11(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1976 which reads as below."11. Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court -(a) any notification of the State Govt. issued before 28/11/1975 purporting to establish any Court of Judicial Magistrates having jurisdiction over more than one district shall be deemed to have been issued under section (11) read with Section 13 of the said Code as amended by this Act and he deemed to be and always to have been void;(b) xxxxxxxxxxxx;