Gujarat High Court
Altaf vs State on 15 April, 2011
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/2082/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2082 of 2010
=================================================
ALTAF
HUSAIN ISMAIL AHMED BAKSH - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance :
MR
VAIBHAV N SHETH for Applicant(s) : 1,
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 19/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Petitioner is original accused in Criminal Case No.1384 of 2010 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bharuch. The criminal case arises out of the FIR bearing C.R.No.I-15 of 2010 dated 19.1.2010 registered before the Bharuch Rural Police Station.
2. In nutshell allegations in the FIR are that the petitioner had, by supplying false information about his name and address, obtained a passport from the Passport Office, Mumbai in the year 2000. On the basis of such passport, he travelled abroad (U.K.) and obtained citizenship of the said country. The petitioner is alleged to have committed offence punishable under Sections 467,468,465,471,419 etc. of the Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of the said investigation, chargesheet was filed before the competent Court. The petitioner moved an application dated 6.4.2010 before the learned Magistrate contending that in terms of provisions contained in Sections 177 and 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he has no jurisdiction to try the offence. On this application, learned Magistrate passed impugned order dated 18.5.2010 holding that since the initial offence had taken place at Mumbai, ordinarily the Magistrate would not be competent to try the offence by virtue of provisions contained in Section 178 (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being continuous offence, he had a jurisdiction to conduct the trial.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the contents of the FIR as well as various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code to contend that the Magistrate at Bharuch has no jurisdiction to conduct the trial. If at all the Court at Mumbai would have the jurisdiction to do so.
4. On the other hand, learned APP submitted that merely on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, the entire complaint may not be dropped, instead the Magistrate can be asked to forward the same to the competent Court.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the document on record, it may be noted that Section 188 of Criminal Procedure Code would have no application in the present case. The said Section reads as follows:-
188.
When an offence is committed outside India-
(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or
(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India;
he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found:
Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
6. Section 188, in clear terms, would come into operation when either an Indian citizen is alleged to have committed the offence outside India or any person is alleged to have committed any offence in an aircraft or ship registered in India. In the present case, allegations are that the petitioner had committed forgery while obtaining his passport at Mumbai. For obvious reasons, therefore,Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code has no application.
7. With respect to the provisions contained in Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it may be recalled that the said provision lays down ordinary place of inquiry and trial. It reads as under:
"Section
177. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed."
Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code pertains to the place of inquiry or trial, which reads as under:
"
178.(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local a areas an offence was committed, or
(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or
(c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or
(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas."
8. In the present case, admittedly the passport with respect to which allegations are levelled against the petitioner was obtained at Mumbai. It is not in the allegations of the complaint that accused committed any illegal act within the jurisdiction of the Court at Bharuch to obtain such a passport. All allegations pertain to the petitioner obtaining a passport in a false name from the Passport Office at Mumbai and upon such passport he has travelled to UK and obtained citizenship of the said country. The said offence was, thus, not committed within the local jurisdiction of the Bharuch Court. Thus, learned Magistrate at Bharuch would have no jurisdiction to try the offence contrary to what is held by the learned Magistrate. The case would not also fall under clause (c) of Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code as the offence cannot be said to have been continuously committed in more local areas than one.
9. In the result, I am of the opinion that the order of the learned Magistrate is required to be set aside not on the basis of provisions contained in Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code but on the basis of provisions contained in Sections 177 and 178 thereof. Under the circumstances, as suggested by learned APP the case itself need not be quashed. However, learned Magistrate may be requested to follow procedure laid in Section 201, which pertains to the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate, who is not competent to take cognizance of the case and which reads as follows:-
"201. If the complaint is made to a Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the offence, he shall-
(a) If the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect;
(b) If the complaint is not in writing, direct the complainant to the proper Court."
10. In the result, instead of quashing the criminal case as prayed by the petitioner, in view of the above observations, learned Magistrate is requested to follow the procedure laid down in Section 201 of the Criminal procedure Code and forward the case to the Magistrate competent to try the same at Mumbai.
11. With above directions, petition is disposed of.
( Akil Kureshi, J. ) sudhir Top