Sushil Harkauli, J. - (1.) -This criminal appeal has been filed by Vikas Yadav under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr. P.C.'). There is a prayer under Section 389 (1), Cr. P.C. for an interim order for bail and suspension of the execution of sentence and stay of realisation of the fine. The Stamp Reporter has given a note in his report that the order under challenge has been passed by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. When the matter was taken up yesterday, i.e., 9.7.2008, an objection was raised from the complainant's side that the Allahabad High Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. The matter was heard yesterday and was adjourned for today on the request from the appellant's side.
(2.) WE have heard Sri V. C. Tewari, senior advocate assisted by S/Sri Manish Tewari and G. K. Bharti from the appellant's side, Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, senior advocate assisted by Sri Samit Gopal for the complaint and the learned A.G.A. Sri R. K. Singh at length again today on the question of the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court regarding this appeal. The undisputed facts relevant for this decision are that an offence is alleged to have been committed by the appellant alongwith others at Ghaziabad, which falls within the territory of Uttar Pradesh and, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the main seat of the High Court at Allahabad. The case was committed to the Court of Session and was pending in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad. By an order dated 23.8.2003, the Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Section 406, Cr. P.C. transferred the trial "to the Sessions Court in Delhi". This order was passed in Transfer Petition (Crl) No. 449/2002, Nilam Katara v. State of U. P. and others. Subsequently, another order was passed by the Supreme Court on 25.10.2002 saying that because by its earlier order dated 23.8.2002 the case has been transferred from Ghaziabad (U. P.) to the Sessions Court in Delhi, therefore, all proceedings in relation to the said criminal application would be filed only in Delhi High Court. The order further says that if the accused has filed any application for bail which is pending before the Allahabad High Court, that also shall stand transferred to the Delhi High Court. By the impugned judgment dated 30.5.2008, the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi has convicted the appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment for life under Section 302/34, I.P.C., 10 years R.I. under Section 364/34, I.P.C. and 5 years R.I. under Section 201/34, I.P.C. and has also imposed fine of Rs. 1,00,000, Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 10,000 respectively with regard to the aforesaid offence. In support of the contention that the appeal is maintainable both before the Delhi High Court as well as the Allahabad High Court, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC 331, which is a case relating to the United Provinces High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 and where the issue was between the territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court and its Lucknow Bench. The decision has no relevance whatsoever to the question involved because the present appeal being a statutory appeal under Section 374, Cr. P.C., the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court has to be examined with reference to the said provision of, Cr. P.C., alone.
(3.) SIMILARLY, the other decisions relied upon from the appellant's side namely Haji Esmail Noor Mohammad and Co. and others v. Competent Officer, AIR 1967 SC 1244 and U. P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad v. State of U. P. and others, AIR 1995 SC 2148, are in respect of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which unlike Section 374, Cr. P.C. permits a writ petition to be filed before the High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of which the cause of action either wholly or in part arises. Therefore, these two decisions are also totally irrelevant. Another decision of the Supreme Court namely Syedabad Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 72, cited from the appellant's side is based upon an interpretation of the Bihar and West Bengal (Transfer of Territories) Act, 1956. Therefore, this decision is also of no help.;