JUDGMENT
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.
1. This revisional application has been filed by the petitioner/State praying for transfer of the Mango (Azadnagar) P.S. case No. 38 of 2006 dated 01/2/2006 of the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jamshedpur to the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and to be amalgamated with Bowbazar P.S. case No. 50 dated 31/1/2006.
2. Case of the petitioner is that on the basis of the complaint filed by one Aloke Kumar Sarkar, S.I. of Police, attached to Anti-Terrorist Cell, Detective Department, Lalbazar, Bowbazar P.S. Case No. 50 dated 31/1/2000 was started against the Petitioner No. 1. It was alleged in the said complaint that the petitioner No. 1, who is a resident of Jamshedpur in conspiracy with I.S.I. agents of Pakistan and with the members of Lashkar-e-Toiba, a known terrorist organization, for the purpose of waging war against the Government of India and in furtherance of the said common object, the petitioner No. 1 collected arms and ammunitions and man power and he was preparing to create trouble in this country. An information was received that the petitioner No. 1 would come infront of 6, Madan Street, near Majestic Bar, Kolkata for delivering some compact Discs (CD) relating to terrorist activities of Lashkar-e-Toiba to his followers. On the basis of the said information, the complainant and others reached the locality at about 19-45 hours and when the opposite party No. 1 came to the spot he was apprehended. On search of his bag, several incriminating articles were recovered and those articles were seized. The opposite party No. 1 was arrested and on the basis of the complaint, Bowbazar P.S. case No. 50 dated 31/1/2006 was started against the opposite party No. 1. While the opposite party No. 1 was in police custody, he disclosed that he had received the detonators from New Delhi and had given the same to the opposite party No. 2 for keeping the same in safe custody at his residence at Jamshedpur. Pursuant to the said statement of the opposite party No. 1, a team of officers of Kolkata Police reached the residence of the opposite party No. 2 at Jamshedpur and on search 16 pieces of detonators and other incriminating articles were recovered and those were seized under a seizure list. Those articles were seized in connection with Bowbazar P.S. case No. 50 dated 31/1/2006. But as the detonators were recovered from the residence of the opposite party No. 2, so the local police started a separate case being Mango (Azadnagar) P.S. Case No. 38 dated 01/2/2006 under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act. The opposite party No. 2 was also shown arrested in connection with Bowbazar P.S. case and the articles were also shown to have been seized in connection with the said case. As the articles were shown seized in connection with Mango (Azadnagar) P.S. case of Jamshedpur and as those were also the alamats of the Bowbazar P.S. case, in order to overcome all the difficulties, a prayer was made before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur for transferring the case of records of Mango (Azadnagar) P.S. case to the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata for amalgamation of both the cases and for effective trial. Said application was heard by the learned Magistrate on 10/3/2006 and after hearing both the sides, the learned Magistrate was pleased to observe that the said prayer was not maintainable before that Court as the matter of transferring the case pertaining to transfer of the case from one State to another was not within his jurisdiction. However, liberty was given to the I.O. to pray for such order before the Appropriate Court. As the amalgamation for both the cases are vitally required for the interest of the prosecution and if that is not done then the prosecution case will badly suffer, so this revisional application has been filed on behalf of the State of West Bengal praying for transfer of case records of Jamshedpur Court to the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Kolkata.
3. I have heard Mr. Kazi Safiullah, the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Imam, who appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 2 did not contest the application. At the outset, Mr. Imam drew my attention to the fact that it has been stated that the opposite party No. 1 was arrested on 31/1/2006 and he was taken to Jamshedpur and pursuant to his statement some incriminating articles including detonators were recovered from the house of the opposite party No. 2 on 01/2/2006. According to Mr. Imam, it is hard to believe this claim of the prosecution as it is not physically possible to recover those articles at Jamshedpur on 01/2/2006 and to produce the accused person in the Court situated at Kolkata on the same day. As such Mr. Imam pointed out that this claim of the prosecution should be disbelieved. As against this Mr. Safiullah, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the opposite party No. 1 was arrested in the night of 31/1/2006 and he was taken to Jamshedpur on the same day and in the early morning the seizure was made from the house of the opposite party No. 2 and immediately both the opposite parties were taken back to Kolkata and produced before the learned Magistrate. Considering the distance in between Jamshedpur and Kolkata it cannot be said that it is impossible for the prosecution to produce those two accused persons in Kolkala on the same day. But whether the claim of the prosecution is genuine or not is not the subject matter of dispute, so far this hearing is concerned. That is to be taken care of by the learned Court below at the time of trial. As much I pass no comment in this respect.
4. Be that as it may, it is the main contention of the State that unless both the cases, which were started in Kolkata Court and Jamshedpur Court are tagged together, it will be difficult for the prosecution to establish the charge which has been made in the Bowbazar P.S. Case. The contention of the State is that whatever recovery was made from the opposite party No. 2 at Jamshedpur were in connection with the Bowbazar P.S. case and as such those articles which were seized from the opposite party No. 2 should be produced in connection with the said case and as such both the cases should be amalgamated in order to facilitate the trial to be conducted smoothly. I find substance in the said argument of the learned Public Prosecutor. It appears prima facie that those incriminating articles were allegedly recovered from the opposite party No. 2 at Jamshedpur and those were recovered in connection with Bowbazar P.S. case. As such, I find no reason as to why a separate case was started against the opposite party No. 2 at Jamshedpur. In all fairness, instead of starting a separate case at Jamshedpur it would have been better if the seizure list was taken into consideralion so far as Bowbazar P.S. case is concerned. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur by his impugned order was of the opinion that he was not competent to pass any such direction and he gave liberty to the prosecution to file appropriate petition before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. The observation as made by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is perfectly justified. As the matter involves transfer of a case from one State to another State, so the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur was not authorized to pass such order under Section 186(b) Cr.P.C. which runs as under:
High Court to decide, in case of doubt, district where enquiry or trial shall take place:
* * * * * * * * (b) If the Courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by the High Court within the local limits of whose Appellate Jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced.
5. There is no dispute that the proceedings in question was first started within the State of West Bengal when Bowbazar P.S. case was started. The Mango (Azadnagar) P.S. case was nothing but an offshoot of the Bowbazar P.S. case and as such I think, under the circumstances, as stated in the revisional application, it will be fair and proper if an order for transferring the said Mango (Azadnagar) P.S. case to the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Calcutta is passed by this Court. If that is done, then after amalgamation of both the cases the trial can continue and nobody will be prejudiced by that.
6. Considering all these things. I am of opinion that it is a fit case where the prayer of the State of West Bengal should be allowed.
7. In the result, the revisional application succeeds on contest. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur is directed to send Mango (Azadnagar) P.S. Case No. 38 of 2006 dated 01/2/2006 from his Court to the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata and when the said record is so transferred it will be amalgamated with Bowbazar P.S. case No. 50 dated 31/1/2006 and to be tried analogously. With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of.
Send a copy of this order immediately to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur as well as to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata for their information and taking necessary action.
Xerox certified copy, if applied for, be handed over to the parties on urgent basis.