Skip to content


Lakhpat Singh and ors. Vs. the State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1980CriLJ776
AppellantLakhpat Singh and ors.
RespondentThe State
Cases ReferredHarak v. State
Excerpt:
.....the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....is involved in this case, as to whether an offence committed within the jurisdiction of sessions judge, bharatpur, can be tried by sessions judge, kota. to dispose of this revision, narration of the facts is necessary, which are as follows.2. one prem prakash goyal is a resident of thoon, tehsil nagar, district bharatpur. on 2-1-78, he boarded 101 up train at about 6.45 p. m. from bharatpur. he was to go to nadbai, which also hes in bharatpur, for his onward journey to thoon. there was lot of rush in the train and prem prakash goyal and his sister occupied seats in 1st class compartment. no sooner the train left bharatpur station, 3 boys entered the compartment and took their seats. the train stopped at helak station, which hes between nadbai and bharatpur and is also within bharatpur.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Mahendra Bhushan, J.

1. An important question of law is involved in this case, as to whether an offence committed within the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, can be tried by Sessions Judge, Kota. To dispose of this revision, narration of the facts is necessary, which are as follows.

2. One Prem Prakash Goyal is a resident of Thoon, Tehsil Nagar, District Bharatpur. On 2-1-78, he boarded 101 Up train at about 6.45 P. M. from Bharatpur. He was to go to Nadbai, which also hes in Bharatpur, for his onward journey to Thoon. There was lot of rush in the train and Prem Prakash Goyal and his sister occupied seats in 1st class compartment. No sooner the train left Bharatpur Station, 3 boys entered the compartment and took their seats. The train stopped at Helak Station, which hes between Nadbai and Bharatpur and is also within Bharatpur District within the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, but the moment the train left Helak Station, it is alleged that one of those three boys took out a knife and at the point of knife they committed robbery. AH the ornaments, which were on the person of Meena Kumari, sister of P.P. Goyal, were taken away by the accused persons. No sooner the train stopped at Paprera Station, which too is within the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, the boys made their escape. A report was lodged by Shri P.P. Goyal and it also contained the details of ornaments etc. of robbery. During the investigation of the case, the three accused-petitioners were apprehended and the alleged stolen property was recovered from them on their informations. Thereafter, a report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted by the S.H.O., G.R.P. Bharatpur in the Court of Railway Magistrate, Kota, and he committed the accused persons to the Court of Sessions Judge, Kota, who transferred the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kota. Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kota, an objection was raised on behalf of the petitioners that he had no jurisdiction to try the case, inasmuch as the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kota held that he had jurisdiction to try the case.

3. Mr. Mehrish, the learned Advocate for the accused-petitioners submits that an offence can only be tried under Chap. XIII, Cr.P.C. and under Section 177, Cr.P.C. every offence ordinarily is to be enquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. He submits that merely because the jurisdiction of Railway Magistrate, Kota extends to Railway Station, Bharatpur, an offence committed within the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, cannot be tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Kota, and it was mandatory for the Railway Magistrate to have committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur for trial in accordance with law. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has repelled this argument only on the ground that this Court in Harak v. State (Criminal Revn. No. 286 of 1976) has held that the word 'situate' occurring in Section 435, Cr.P.C (1898) regarding revisional jurisdiction is to be so interpreted that a revision will he under Section 435, Cr.P.C. (1898) to the Court of Session to whom the learned Magistrate is subordinate.

But, to my mind, that analogy will not apply to the trial of the case. Under Section 397, Cr.p.C. (new), which corresponds to Section 435, Cr.P.C. (1898), this Court or the Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court situated within its or his local jurisdiction. Admittedly, the Railway Magistrate, Kota is having his Court in Kota City, and as such, the Court of Railway Magistrate is situated within the local jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Kota. Therefore, so far as the appeal or revision is concerned, even with regard to the cases arising within the jurisdiction of the district other then Kota District, to which the jurisdiction of Railway Magistrate, Kota extends, they will he before the Sessions Judge, Kota. So far as the trial of the case is concerned, it will be governed by Chap. XIII, Cr.P.C. This Chapter contains Sections. 177 to 189. Under Section 177, every offence ordinarily is to be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 179, Cr.P.C. will apply to those cases when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been shown and of a consequence which has ensued and such an offence may be enquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such a consequence has ensued. Section 180, Cr.P.C. will apply to the place of trial of those cases where the act is an offence by reason of relation to other offences. Section 181, Cr.P.C. relates to the place of trial in case of other offences and under Sub-section (3) of this section, an offence of robbery, with which we are presently concerned, may be enquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed, or the stolen property, the subject of offence, was possessed by any person committing it or by any person who received or retained such property knowing or believing it to be stolen property. Under Section 183, Cr.P.C. when an offence is committed by or against any person or the thing on journey or voyage, the same may be enquired into or tried by a Court through or into whose local jurisdiction that person or thing passes in the course of that journey or voyage. Under Section 185, Cr.P.C. powers are vested in the State Government to direct that any case or class of cases committed for trial in any district may be tried in any Sessions Division. No direction of the State Government issued under Section 185, Cr.P.C. to the effect that the case arising within the jurisdiction of Sessions Division, Bharatpur, so fat as the jurisdiction of Railway Magistrate, Kota is concerned shall be tried by the Sessions Judge, Kota.

4. A perusal of the above provisions Of Chap. XIII, Cr.P.C. will make it clear that ordinarily an offence shall be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose jurisdiction it was committed, and so far as the offence of robbery is concerned, it may be enquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed, or the stolen property or any part of it was found.

5. It is not disputed that so far as the occurrence is concerned, it took place in the train when P.P. Goyal along with his sister boarded the train at Bharatpur and was proceeding to Nadbai, which is also in the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. No sooner the train left Helak, the offence of robbery was committed.

6. Under Section 11(1), Cr.P.C. with the the prior consultation of the High Court, the State Government established a court of Railway Magistrate with headquarters at Kota, and the jurisdiction was to extend to 7 revenue districts including Bharatpur. Under Section 9(1), Cr.P.C. the.State Government established a Court of Session for 26 Sessions Divisions vide Notification No. F-47 (3) Nyay/ 76 dated 22-4-77 published in Rajasthan Gazette, Part A, dated 12-5-77 at page 12. The territorial jurisdiction with effect from 1-7-77 of Sessions Judge, Kota was only for Kota District, whereas for Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, it was Bharatpur District. It can, therefore, be said that the territorial jurisdiction for the trial of cases, so far as the Sessions Judge, Kota is concerned, was limited to the Revenue District, Kota, and did not extend beyond it. Therefore, under Section 177, Cr.P.C. read with Sub-section (3) of Section 181, Cr.P.C. an offence committed within the local jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur can only be tried by the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, and not in any other Sessions Division. In view of this legal position, only Sessions Judge, Bharatpur can try the case and not the Sessions Judge, Kota. The trial of the case by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kota will, therefore, be without jurisdiction.

7. In the result, the revision succeeds. The order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kota is set aside. The commitment of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Kota is hereby quashed. The case will now go back to the Railway Magistrate, Kota, who will commit the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur in accordance with law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //