AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajendra M. Sareen, J
[1] The petitioner has preferred the present petition under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for the following reliefs :-
"28(A). Be pleased to order to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the First Information Report lodged with Narol Police Station recorded as C.R. No.11191065200707 of 2020;
(B). Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to restrain the Investigating Officer from arresting the petitioner herein in connection with the First Information Report lodged with Narol Police Station recorded as C.R. No.11191065200707 of 2020;
AND/OR ALTERNATIVELY
(B). Be pleased to order to enlarge the petitioner on bail temporarily for a period of four weeks in the event the investigating officer arrest him in connection with the information report lodged with Narol Police Station recorded as C.R. No.11191065200707 of 2020;
(C). Be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 25.08.2020 recorded by the learned 5th additional District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, in Criminal Misc. Application No.1883 of 2020 and direct the learned 5th Additinal District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, to hear the same on merits."
[2] RULE. Mr. Mr.J.K. Shah, learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State. At the request of the learned advocates for the respective parties, present petition is taken up for final hearing today.
[3] Heard Mr.B.M. Mangukiya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr.J.K. Shah, learned APP for the respondent State.
[4] Mr.Mangukiya, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Sessions Court has passed the impugned order holding that the application is not tenable before the Court due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, mainly on the ground of Affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer. He has submitted that the Investigation Officer Mr. S.A. Gohil, Police Inspector, Narol Police Station, raised an objection about the territorial jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, on the ground that the FIR filed against the petitioner and others has been forwarded to the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad City, Court No.4 and, therefore, the application was required to be filed before the learned City Sessions Judge and not before the Sessions Court. Mr.Mangukiya, learned advocate has also drawn attention of this Court to the Affidavit filed by Kailash Gupta, son of Gangasahay Gupta before the Sessions Court in Criminal misc. Application No.1894 of 2020 dated 23.08.2020 (Annexure-E page 83). He has submitted that the contention raised by the Police Police Inspector is not well founded and is incorrect. He has submitted that the notification issued by the Government of Gujarat, in purported exercise of the powers, for extension of the limits of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation does not govern the jurisdiction limits of the Courts and . The territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court and the Ahmedabad Rural Court have been fixed as per the notification issued by the Government of Gujarat in the year 1986 and from that point of time, the jurisdictions of the Ahmedabad City Civil Court and Ahmedabad Rural Courts have been decided and the original limits of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is fixed as a limit of the Ahmedabad City Civil Court and the outside area of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, the jurisdiction of the Rural Courts commence, which is limited to the revenue jurisdiction of Ahmedabad District. He has submitted that there was an extension of limits of Ahmedabad City from year 2006 onwards. More than once the extension has been given to the limits of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, however, there is no corresponding alteration of jurisdiction of the City Civil Court and, therefore, neither the area of jurisdiction of Ahmedabad City court has been extended nor the area of the Ahmedabad Rural courts have been reduced to the proportionate of the addition of the area of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. He has further submitted that the notification issued by the Government of Gujarat dated February 06, 1986 decides the jurisdiction of the City court and Ahmedabad Rural Courts and so far as the City Court is concerned, from Narol, Taluka City, the entire revenue village Gothan of Narol and Shahvadi Saijpur, there is no inclusion of village Gopalpur. He has also drawn attention to the Notification dated 05.02.1986 annexed with the petition.
[5] Mr.Mangukiya, learned advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that after extension of the limits, in year 2006, the Government issued another notification dated June 28, 2007, whereby it has been held that the territorial limits jurisdiction of Ahmedabad city including rural are existed prior to 14.02.2006, shall remain the same. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the copy of the said notification.
[6] Mr.Mangukiya leanred advocate has further submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts, the contention raised by the Police Inspector is not well founded and, therefore, deserves to be ignored only because the Police Inspector has forwarded the FIR to a wrong court, which has no jurisdiction, cannot alter the jurisdiction of the Court. He has submitted that the Police Inspector has no power or authority to decide and determine the jurisdiction of the Court and, therefore, by mistake if the Police Officer has forwarded the FIR in a wrong court, he shall correct himself and may recall the report submitted before the wrong court and may resubmit before the Court having competent jurisdiction.
[7] Mr.Mangukiya, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the District and Session judge (Rural) Ahmedabad has jurisdiction to entertain the application as per the notification issued by the Government of Gujarat, which is prevalent since 1986. There is no further alteration of the territorial jurisdiction of the courts in Ahmedabad District, including Ahmedabad the notification dated 05.02.1986, has been placed on records, whereby the Government of Gujarat, in purported exercise of the powers conferred upon it under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the then the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (now the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949), altered and extended the limits of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The Schedule attached to the said notification clarifies the actual limits of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. He has further submitted that at page 9 of the said notification, it is clear that the no survey number of Saijpur - Gopalpur was included in the city limits of Ahmedabad City, which states as follows :-
"Along the western boundary of survey nos. 227/2, 100/1, 101 and 103 of Laxmipura touching the village boundary of Shahvadi at north-east corner of survey no.102 of Laxmipura village and then to north alongwith village boundary of village Laxmipura upto North-east corner of survey no. 129 of village Laxmipura and then to north alongwith the village boundary of village Saijpur - Gopalpur upto the north-east corner of the S.E. corner of survey no. 184 of village Shahvadi, were touching the existing municipal limit alongwith existing municipal limit of north-west corner of survey no. 301 of village Hansol."
[8] Mr.Mangukiya, learned advocate has further submitted that the last few lines of the said notification placed on record at page 9, makes it crystal clear that village Saijpur - Gopalpur was not included in the municipal limit at the time when the Government extended the municipal limit of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.
[9] Mr.Mangukiya, learned advocate has further submitted that on account of the extension of the municipal limit, the concerned local authorities are to be dissolved and area is required to be extended and merged with the existing municipal limit of concerned municipality or the Corporation, as the case may be.
[10] Mr.Mangukiya, learned advocate has further submitted that by notification dated 14.02.2006, the Government of Gujarat decided to further alter the limit of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation by extending its limit including the area of the municipalities and Gram Panchayat in the area of the Municipal Corporation. In pursuance thereof, a notification dated 14.02.2006 has been issued, whereby seven municipalities have been dissolved. He has drawn attention of this Court to the Notification dated 14.02.2006 annexed with the petition.
[11] Mr.Mangukiya, learned advocate has further submitted that another notification came to be issued by the Government of Gujarat dated 22.07.2006, in purported exercise of the powers conferred upon it under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, with the powers conferred under clause (2) of Article 243 of the Constitution of India and included the area of certain municipalities and Gram Panchayats as well. As per the entries made in Schedule A attached to it in this schedule-A, in the list of Gram Panchayat at Sr. No.11, the Gram Panchayat of Saijpur - Gopalpur is included in the municipal limits. Attention is drawn to the said notification.
[12] Mr.Mangukiya, learned advocate has further submitted that in view of the aforestated facts, Saijpur - Gopalpur Gram Panchayat was existing and was not forming the part of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation till it is dissolved and merged in the said limits of Ahmedabad City on 20.07.2006. Until 19.07.2006, Saijpur - Gopalpur Gram Panchayat, which was an independent local body, was not forming part and parcel of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and, therefore, the judicial limit of the City Civil Court is limited to the city limits of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, which was extended by the notification dated 05.02.1986. He has submitted that the apprehensions about the court's jurisdiction have been finally cleared by the Government with the consultation of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, whereby the Government of Gujarat has issued notification dated 28.06.2007. It has been clearly stated that the extension of the city limits by notification dated 14.02.2006 would not alter the territorial jurisdiction of the courts of Ahmedabad including Ahmedabad (Rural) and the City Court.
[13] Mr.Mangukiya, learned advocate has further submitted that only because some administrative mistakes have been committed by the officers of Narol Police Station and by virtue thereof, if the FIRs of that police station are forwarded to the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, by such act, neither the courts of Metropolitan would become competent to exercise jurisdiction over such FIRs and the accused nor the jurisdiction of the criminal courts of the civil courts of Ahmedabad (Rural) division would be divested by the act of concerned police officers. Therefore, the plea being raised by the concerned police officer that he has forwarded the subject matter of the FIR in the court of learned 4th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate court and, therefore, this court has no jurisdiction, is not tenable. If the police officer, for any reasons has forwarded the FIRs to a court which has no jurisdiction, he will forward the another copy of the FIR with the explanation to the concerned court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad. He has submitted that as per the first informant, the issue relates to land bearing survey no.230 of village Saijpur - Gopalpur. In fact, the correct survey number is 230/4. Copy of the village form No.7 of survey no.230/4 is annexed to the petition.
[14] Mr.Mangukiya, learned advocate has further submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and in view of the notification issued by the Government of Gujarat, which is the only competent authority to decide and determine the jurisdiction of the court, the plea being raised by the Investigation Officer is not well founded.
[15] Mr.Mr.Mangukiya, learned advocate has further submitted that the Sessions Court has erred in rejecting the application by passing the impugned order relying on the plea raised by the police officer. He has further submitted that the Sessions Court has not considered and dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioner before the Sessions Court.
[16] Mr.J.K. Shah, learned APP has submitted that if the Sessions Court has not considered and dealt with the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the matter is required to be remanded to the Sessions Court to decide the matter afresh, within stipulated time.
[17] Mr.Mangukiya, learned advocate has submitted that he has no objections if the matter is remanded to the Sessions Court to decide the issue of jurisdiction and also on merits, within stipulated time, however, he has requested to extend the protection granted by the Sessions Court while passing the impugned order by directing that the concerned investigating officer is hereby directed not to take any coercive steps against the applicant till 28.08.2020, which expires today.
[18] Having heard Mr.Mangukiya, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.J.K. Shah, learned APP and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consensus of the learned advocate for the respective parties, and as the Sessions Court has not considered and dealt with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and has passed the impugned order merely on the basis of the objection raised by the police officer about jurisdiction, the impugned order passed by the learned 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur below Application Ex.Nos.1 and 3 in Criminal Misc. Application No.1883 of 2020 dated 25.08.2020 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur to decide the matter afresh and decide the issue of jurisdiction and if jurisdiction lies decide the matter on merits, after hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties and pass a reasoned and speaking order, dealing with the contentions raised and those may be raised at the time of hearing, within a period of FOUR WEEKS from the date of receipt of this order.
The interim protection granted by the learned 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur while passing the impugned order, is hereby extended and the concerned investigating officer is directed NOT TO TAKE COERCIVE ACTION against the petitioner till final disposal of the matter by the learned 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, on remand.
Parties are directed to cooperate the Sessions Court in early disposal of the matter within stipulated period, as aforesaid.
With the above observations and directions, present petition stands disposed of.
Registry is directed to send the writ of this order to the leanred 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur by FAX, forthwith.