Criminal Miscellaneous Application no.4 5 of 2003 v. Dehradun
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 s. 91
- Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 s. 89
- Constitution of India art. 141
Judgment
to Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghaziabad. A notification was issued by the U.P. Government on 28.12.2001 in regard to the 18 districts and in pursuance thereof, the Allahabad High Court was pleased issue notification dated 16.01.2002 in regard the appointment of Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghaziabad the offence committed in the geographical areas mentioned in the said notification. Copy of the chargesheet filed by the CBI against the applicant indicates the offence was committed within jurisdiction of district Ghaziabad (U.P.) which by virtue of the government order dated 28.12.2001 falls within jurisdiction of Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghaziabad. By notification of the Allahabad High Court dated
16.01.2002 of Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class Ghaziabad was created pursuant aforementioned government notification and above case now falls within jurisdiction of Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghaziabad and Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun now has no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial. Apart from this, the provisions of section 91 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, envisages the proceedings pending before the appointed day in a court, tribunal, authority or officer in any area which on that day falls within the State shall stand transferred the corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer of that State. The provisions of said section 91 are similar the provisions of section 89 of the Bihar Reorganization Act,
2000. The later provision came into consideration before the Apex Court in the case of C.B.I. A.H.D. Patna Vs. Braj Bhushan Prasad & Ors., VII (2001) SLT 87 and on account of the fact that the occurrence took place in the part of State which now falls in Jharkhand State, the cases specified were directed to be transferred the competent courts in Jharkhand State. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended law declared by Supreme Court law of land binding on all throughout country in view of Article 141 of the Constitution and on this analogy the instant case has to be transferred to a court of competent jurisdiction, which this case the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, first class, (CBI) Ghaziabad (U.P.). Having regard to the facts of the case the submission has force and has to be accepted. Sri U.K. Uniyal has submitted that he has no objection if the case is transferred to the court at Ghaziabad. The application allowed. Criminal case no.3 no. 1998, C.B.I. versus Anoop Kumar Sareen pending before the Special Judicial Magistrate, (CBI) Dehradun, Uttaranchal, transferred the Special Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghaziabad.
26.03.2003/B. (Irshad Hussain, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 — s. 91; Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 — s. 89; Constitution of India — art. 141.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Uttarakhand High Court, on 26 Mar 2003. The bench was IRSHAD HUSSAIN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.