Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/6352/2007 5/ 7 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH Court OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 6352 of 2007
=========================================
DHIRUBHAI
RANCHHODJI DESAI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 5 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
DHIRENDRA MEHTA for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KP
RAVAL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
2
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
Date
: 30/06/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
this application, the applicant has prayed for the following
substantive relief:-
?S12(C)
to transfer the Criminal Case No.116 of 2002 from the Court of the
learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, to the Court of the
learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vadodara for its fresh trial
and adjudication in the interest of justice, by declaring and holding
that the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vadodara is
competent and having jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon the
Criminal Case No.116 of 2002.??
2. The
facts stated briefly are that the applicant herein in his capacity as
Joint Managing Director of Surat Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd. had
during his tenure lodged a complaint against the respondents No.3 to
6 herein alleging commission of offences punishable under sections
408, 409, 468, 469, 471, 201 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
before the Director General of Police , Economic Offence Cell, CID
Crime Branch, (Vadodara Zone), Gujarat State ? respondent No.2
herein, which came to be registered as an FIR vide CID Crime Branch,
Vadodara Zone I C.R. No.1 of 1999.
3. Upon
culmination of investigation, charge sheet was submitted in the Court
of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad and the same
came to be registered as Criminal Case No.116 of 2002. It appears
that in the said proceedings, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
had on 18th January, 2007 filed an application at Exhibit
6 inter alia praying for transfer of the said case to the Court of
the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vadodara on the ground
that in view of the circular of the Home Department, State of
Gujarat, the said Court would have jurisdiction to try the case. By
an order dated 18th January, 2007, the learned Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad rejected the application on the
ground that the said Court has no power to transfer a case from one
district to another district. As the State Government has not carried
the matter any further, the applicant herein being the original
complainant has filed the present application praying to transfer the
case from the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Ahmedabad to the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Vadodara.
4. Heard
Mr. Dhirendra Mehta, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. K.P.
Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
respondents No.1 and 2. Despite service of notice, there is no
appearance on behalf of respondents No.3 to 6.
5. Mr.
Dhirendra Mehta, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted
that the offence in question has been committed at Surat against the
Bank which is situated in the city of Surat and therefore, the
applicant had lodged the complaint with the respondent No.2 and the
investigation was carried out by the Police Sub Inspector, CID Crime
Branch, Surat city. It is submitted that such economic offences are
dealt with, investigated and prosecuted by the respondent No.2 under
its Vadodara zone office and for that purpose, the competent Court,
which can have the jurisdiction as per the circular of the Home
Department of the State of Gujarat is the Court of the learned Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate at Vadodara.
6. It
is further submitted that after investigation, the charge sheet came
to be submitted by the respondent No.2 before the learned Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad. The apprehension of the
applicant is that such irregularities may vitiate the entire
proceedings and ultimately may cause serious prejudice and grave
injustice, if the proper Court having jurisdiction over the criminal
case does not conduct the trial. That the accused persons, if
adversely affected by the final outcome may get undue benefit by
raising a contention regarding the decision being void for want of
jurisdiction on the part of the concerned Court. Reliance is placed
upon a circular of the Home Department of the State of Gujarat, to
submit that the case is required to be tried and adjudicated by the
Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vadodara, as the
case falls within the purview of the Vadodara zone of the office of
the respondent No.2. It is accordingly urged that the application be
allowed and the case be transferred from the Court of the learned
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad to the Court of the learned
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vadodara.
7. On
the other hand, Mr. K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
has drawn the attention of the Court to the affidavit-in-reply filed
on behalf of the respondent No.2 in response to the present
application, wherein it is stated that the complaint was lodged by
the applicant herein before the Vadodara zone of the respondent No.2
on 16th February, 1999. Pursuant to the registration of
the said complaint, investigation was taken over by the Police
Inspector P.S. Pathak, CID Crime, Surat Unit. Subsequently, the
investigation was handed over to Shri B.S. Pathan, Police Inspector,
CID Unit. Thereafter, by an order dated 1st March, 2001
made by the Additional Director General of Police, CID Crime and
Railways, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, the investigation had been
taken over by Shri V.S. Shevale, Police Inspector, Economic Cell,
Gandhinagar Camp, Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad on 11th March,
2001. That the said investigating officer submitted charge sheet on
31st January, 2002 in the Court of the learned Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. It is categorically averred in
the affidavit-in-reply that as per the notification dated 10th
February, 1980 issued by the Home Department, State of Gujarat under
section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code),
three police stations were sanctioned, on the basis of which, the
offence in question which had taken place at Surat was registered
with the Vadodara zone. That thereafter, the investigation has been
transferred to the Economic Offence Cell, Gandhinagar Cell Camp
Officer, Ahmedabad. It is further averred that all cases investigated
and filed by the Crime Branch Police of the State CID, office of
which is situated in the Director General of Police and IGP’s office,
Ahmedabad fall within the jurisdiction of the learned Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedbad. It is pointed out that accordingly
the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad had issued an
order No.A(VI) 1984 clarifying that all the cases investigated and
filed by the Crime Branch Police of the State CID, office of which is
situated in the Director General of Police and IGP’s office,
Ahmedabad fall within the jurisdiction of the learned Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The learned Additional Public
Prosecutor has accordingly submitted that the present case would fall
within the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Ahmedabad and that no case is made out for transferring
the same.
8. This
Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned
advocates for the parties and has perused the record of the case. A
perusal of the notification dated 10th February, 1980
issued by the Home Department in exercise of powers conferred by
clause (a) of section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the
Code) shows that the State Government has declared the places
specified in column 2 of the Schedule appended thereto to be a police
station and has directed that each of such police station shall
include the areas specified against them in column 3 of the said
Schedule. Under serial No.2 of the said Schedule, the office of the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID Crime, Baroda unit, Baroda has
been specified as a Police Station for Baroda City, Baroda Rural,
Surat City, Surat Rural, Bharuch, Valsad, Dangs and Panchmahals
districts. Hence, the offence in question has rightly been registered
with the office of the CID Crime Branch, Vadodara.
9. However,
insofar as the jurisdiction of the Court is concerned, the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad is vested with the
jurisdiction to try all cases investigated and filed by the Crime
Branch Police of the State CID, office of which is situated in the
Director General of Police and IGP’s office, Ahmedabad. In the facts
of the present case, the case was initially investigated by the
officer of the CID Crime Branch, Vadodara but was subsequently
transferred to the officer of the Economic Cell, Gandhinagar Camp,
Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad, who concluded the investigation and
submitted the charge sheet before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Court, Ahmedabad. In the circumstances, as the case was investigated
and filed by an officer of the Crime Branch Police of the State CID,
office of which is situated in the Director General of Police and
IGP’s office, Ahmedabad, the jurisdiction to try the case lies with
the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad. In the
circumstances, no case is made out for transfer of the said case from
the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad to
the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vadodara.
10. For
the foregoing reasons, the application fails and is, accordingly,
rejected. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands
vacated.
(HARSHA
DEVANI, J.)
shekhar/-
Top