But be that as it may, the upshot of the above discussion
is (i) that the issue of jurisdiction of a court to try an “offence”
or “offender” as well as the issue of territorial jurisdiction,
depend upon facts established through evidence (ii) that if the
issue is one of territorial jurisdiction, the same has to be
decided with respect to the various rules enunciated in sections
177 to 184 of the Code and (iii) that these questions may have
to be raised before the court trying the offence and such court
is bound to consider the same.{Para 39}
40. Having taken note of the legal position, let me now come
back to the cases on hand.
41. As seen from the pleadings, the type of jurisdictional
issue, raised in the cases on hand, is one of territorial
jurisdiction, atleast as of now. The answer to this depends upon
facts to be established by evidence. The facts to be established
by evidence, may relate either to the place of commission of the
offence or to other things dealt with by Sections 177 to 184 of
the Code. In such circumstances, this Court cannot order
transfer, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, even
before evidence is marshaled. Hence the transfer petitions are
liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed.
41. However, it is open to both parties to raise the issue of
territorial jurisdiction, lead evidence on questions of fact that
may fall within the purview of Sections 177 to 184 read with
Section 26 of the Code and invite a finding.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO.456 OF 2019
KAUSHIK CHATTERJEE Vs STATE OF HARYANA
Dated: SEPTEMBER 30, 2020.
Read full judgment here: Click here
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment