Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

?181. (2) Any offence of kidnapping or abduction of a person may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the person was kidnapped or abducted or was conveyed or concealed or detained.?
Any offence of kidnapping or abduction may be inquired or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the person was kidnapped or abducted or was conveyed or concealed or detained. In case of kidnapping and abduction the local jurisdiction shall be where the person concerned has been abducted or kidnapped or was conveyed or concealed or detained. It is likely that a person has been kidnapped from one part of the country and kept in another part of the State. For example, if a person is kidnapped from Rajasthan and is kept in the State of Haryana, then both the Magistrates and Sessions Judge will have jurisdiction to try the offences. As regards the completion of Section 364-A is concerned, something more is required for that offence. Section 364-A was introduced in IPC by the Criminal Amendment Act (42 of 1993) which came into effect from 22-5-1993 because of the increasing number of cases where the victim is abducted and a demand for money is raised with a threat perception or danger to the life of that person and that person is ultimately put to death. Such kind of offences are not covered under sub-

section (2) of Section 181. It is not simply abduction or kidnapping. It is something more than ordinary case of abduction or kidnapping as defined in Sections 359 and 362. They are offences simpliciter of kidnapping and abduction. But here, in the case of Section 364-A something more is there, that is, that a person was abducted from Lucknow and demand has been raised at Haldwani, Nainital with threat. If the amount is not paid to the abductor then the victim is likely to be put to death. In order to constitute an offence under Section 364-A, all the ingredients have not taken place at Lucknow or Unnao. The two incidents took place in the State of Uttar Pradesh, that is, abduction and death of the victims but one of the ingredient took place, that is, threat was given at the house of the victims at Haldwani, Nainital demanding the ransom money otherwise the victim will be put to death. Therefore, one of the ingredients has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Haldwani, Nainital. Therefore, it is a case wherein the offence has taken place at three places i.e. at Haldwani, Nainital, where the threat to the life of the victim was given and demand of money was raised, the victim was abducted from Lucknow and he was ultimately put to death at Unnao. Therefore, the trial could be conducted in any of the local jurisdiction that is Haldwani, Nainital, in the State of Uttaranchal, Lucknow or Unnao, within the State of Uttar Pradesh. But in the present case the case was registered at Police Station Haldwani, and the investigation started at Haldwani therefore the local jurisdiction to try the offence shall be at Haldwani/Nainital. If the investigation agency wants to prosecute or file a challan at Haldwani/Nainital Court, then District Nainital will have jurisdiction to try the matter. It is wrong to say that Additional Sessions Judge, Third Fast Track Court, Nainital has no jurisdiction. The view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge, Third Fast Track Court, Nainital is wrong and we set aside the same though the High Court has set aside but for wrong reasons. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with this matter. We dismiss the special leave petition and direct that Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital will have jurisdiction to try the offence.?