Jaffar Ali vs CBI, Chandigarh

L.N. Mittal, J. (ORAL) - Jaffar Ali has filed this revision petition assailing order dated 11.08.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Ambala, thereby ordering framing of charge against the petitioner and his co-accused in FIR No.RC 11 CSJ/2001-SIU/CBI/SIC.I/N.Delhi dated 25.07.2001 under Section 120 read with 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act, investigated by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)-respondent.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

The case has inter-state ramifications. Conspiracy was allegedly hatched in Delhi and offences were committed in State of Haryana as well as in State of Jammu and Kashmir. CBI initially presented challan before Special Judge, Delhi. However, R. C. Powaria one of the accused, challenged territorial jurisdiction of Special Judge, Delhi by filing Criminal M. C. which was disposed of vide order dated 18.03.2009 by Delhi High Court. It was held therein that since only conspiracy was allegedly hatched in Delhi, whereas the main offences were committed in Haryana and Jammu, court at Delhi has no territorial jurisdiction. The case then proceeded in court of Special Judge, Ambala now Panchkula (Haryana).

Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner was posted at Jammu and therefore, no part of the offence was committed by him in Haryana and, therefore, Special Judge at Ambala/Panchkula has no territorial jurisdiction. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Delhi High Court dated 18.03.2009 in the case of R.C. Powaria (supra) and also on judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI, AHD, Patna v. Braj Bhushan Prasad and others with R. K. Rana v. CBI, Patna and others, AIR 2001, Supreme Court, 4014. The contention cannot be accepted because admittedly part of the offence was also committed by petitioner''s co-accused in Haryana. Consequently Special Judge for the State of Haryana also has territorial jurisdiction to try the case. On the other hand, if contention of counsel for the petitioner is accepted, then the case also cannot be tried at Jammu because accused R. C. Powaria would take the plea that Court at Jammu has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case against him. On the other hand, where two or more Courts have concurrent territorial jurisdiction to try a case, obviously the case can be tried in any one of the said Courts.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed.