# Ram Sahai Singh Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 273
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1198 of 2022
- **Bench:** Shekhar Kumar Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-sahai-singh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48510
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Sections 177, 178 & 179- The
normal rule is that the offence shall
ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a
274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court within whose local jurisdiction it
was committed. However, when it is
uncertain in which of several local areas
an offence was committed or where an
offence is committed partly in one local
area and partly in another or where an
offence is a continuing one, and continues
to be committed in more than one local
area and takes place in different local
areas as per Section 178 Cr.P.C. the Court
having jurisdiction over any of such local
areas is competent to inquire into and try
the offence. Section 179 Cr.P.C. makes it
clear that if anything happened as a
consequence of the offence, the same may
be inquired into or tried by a Court within
whose local jurisdiction such thing has
been done or such consequence has
ensued- The offence in this case is said to
have been committed in more local areas
and
one
of
the
local
areas
being
Chitrakoot, the court below at Chitrakoot
has jurisdiction to proceed with the
criminal case instituted therein.

Where a continuing offence is committed
partly in one area or where the consequences
of commission of any offence have ensued,
then the court within whose jurisdiction the
offence has been partly committed or any of
the consequences of an offence has ensued,
can take cognizance of the said offence. (Para
9, 10)

Criminal Revision rejected. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law cited:-

## Text

5 All. Ram Sahai Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
273
submissions are made by the learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant are on merits are required to be
dealt with and considered at an appropriate
stage during the course of the trial. Some of
the submissions may be considered to be
the defence of the accused. Some of the
submissions made by the learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant on the
conduct of the victim/prosecutrix are
required to be dealt with and considered at
an appropriate stage during the trial. The
same are not required to be considered at
this stage of framing of the charge. On
considering the material on record, we are
of the opinion that there is more than a
prima facie case against the accused for
which he is required to be tried. There is
sufficient ample material against the
accused and therefore the learned Trial
Court has rightly framed the charge against
the accused and the same is rightly
confirmed
by
the
High
Court.
No
interference of this Court is called for."

13. Indisputably, it is open to this
Court to quash the charges framed by the
trial court and discharge the accused
revisionist but the same cannot be done
by weighing the correctness, sufficiency
of the evidence. The principle to be
adopted in such cases should be that if
the entire evidence produced by the
prosecution is to be believed would it
constitute the offence or not. It is only at
the stage of the trial that truthfulness,
sufficiency and acceptability of the
evidence can be adjudged. Therefore, it
will not be proper to truncate or snip the
proceeding at the stage of framing of
charges against the revisionist when
perusal of the statement of victim said to
have been recorded under Section 161 &
164 Cr.P.C. clearly reveals that the
revisionist made sexual intercourse with
the complainant for a continuous period
of two years on false pretext of marriage.

14. Thus, in view of the law as has
been explained in several decisions and,
the fact that the trial Court having
considered the record of the case and
evidence brought by the prosecution has
formed an opinion prima facie of
involvement
of
the
revisionist
in
commission of offence, the court below
has rightly dismissed the argument for
discharge of revisionist. There is no
illegality, perversity or impropriety in the
impugned order. There is no jurisdictional
error in the impugned order. The revision
is
not
sustainable
and
is
hereby
dismissed.

Office is directed to certify the copy
of this order to the court below through
learned Sessions Judge, concerned.
----------
(2022)05ILR A273
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1198 of 2022

Ram Sahai Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Rajiv Dwivedi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Manish Tandon

Civil Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Sections 177, 178 & 179- The
normal rule is that the offence shall
ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a
274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court within whose local jurisdiction it
was committed. However, when it is
uncertain in which of several local areas
an offence was committed or where an
offence is committed partly in one local
area and partly in another or where an
offence is a continuing one, and continues
to be committed in more than one local
area and takes place in different local
areas as per Section 178 Cr.P.C. the Court
having jurisdiction over any of such local
areas is competent to inquire into and try
the offence. Section 179 Cr.P.C. makes it
clear that if anything happened as a
consequence of the offence, the same may
be inquired into or tried by a Court within
whose local jurisdiction such thing has
been done or such consequence has
ensued- The offence in this case is said to
have been committed in more local areas
and
one
of
the
local
areas
being
Chitrakoot, the court below at Chitrakoot
has jurisdiction to proceed with the
criminal case instituted therein.

Where a continuing offence is committed
partly in one area or where the consequences
of commission of any offence have ensued,
then the court within whose jurisdiction the
offence has been partly committed or any of
the consequences of an offence has ensued,
can take cognizance of the said offence. (Para
9, 10)

Criminal Revision rejected. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law cited:-

1. Y. Abraham Ajith & ors Vs Inspr. of Police,
Chennai & anr, 2004 (6) Supreme 207

2. Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari Vs St. of U.P. &
anr, 2020 LawSuit (All) 459.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar
Yadav, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Dwivedi, learned
counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for
the State and Mr. Manish Tandon, learned
counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. The instant revision has been
preferred against the impugned judgment
and order dated 16.03.2022 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special
Judge (POCSO Act), Chitrakoot in Special
Session Trial No.36 of 2018 (State of U.P.
vs. Ram Sahai Singh) arising out of Case
Crime No.225 of 2018, under Sections 366,
328, 376 (2) (n), 294, 323, 504, 506 IPC,
Section 66-E of Information Technology
Act, 2000 and Section 6 of Protection of
Children From Sexual Offence Act, Police
Station Karvi, District Chitrakoot whereby
the application under section 177 Cr.P.C.
has been rejected.

3.

The
prosecution
version
as
adumbrated in the first information report
lodged by the prosecutrix Pratibha Singh on
05.04.2018 regarding an alleged incident of
rape by the revisionist on her on 13.08.2013
at about 01.00 P.M. In the F.I.R. it is alleged
that the victim came in touch with the
revisionist in the year 2012 and the revisionist
had helped her in getting a laptop in
government scheme in the year 2012 and
since then the revisionist has been stalking
her and used to pass obscene remarks. It is
further alleged that on 13.08.2013 at about
01.00 P.M. when she was waiting for Auto
outside the college, the revisionist came and
offered her for lift in his Bolero Car and made
her sit by his side. The revisionist then
offered her cold drink and after consuming it,
she became unconscious and when she
became out of conscious she found herself in
a Jungle where the revisionist raped her. It is
further alleged that the revisionist also
prepared video clippings and clicked some
photographs and also extended threats of
making it viral and continuously kept on
sexually exploiting her.

4.

After
investigation,
the
Investigating Officer has submitted charge
5 All. Ram Sahai Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
275
sheet against the revisionist on 31.05.2018
and the learned Magistrate while taking
cognizance committed the case as Sessions
Trial No.36 of 2018 vide order dated
25.06.2018.
Feeling
aggrieved,
the
revisionist has preferred an application
under Section 177 Cr.P.C. before the court
of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act),
Karvi, Chitrakoot on 14.03.2022, who vide
order
dated
14.03.2022
rejected
the
application filed by the revisionist, hence,
this revision.

5. Mr. Rajiv Dwivedi, learned counsel
for the revisionist has submitted that the
impugned FIR has been lodged against the
revisionist as a counterblast to the FIR
lodged by the revisionist against the father
of the prosecutrix at Police Station Kotwali
Karvi Nagar, District Chitrakoot in Case
Crime No.41 of 2018, under Sections 419,
420, 406 IPC. He has further submitted that
the as per FIR the incident alleged to have
taken place at Gramoday University,
Chitrakoot, Satna (M.P.) while the FIR has
been lodged at Police Station Karvi,
Chitrakoot (U.P.). He has further submitted
that the charge sheet has been submitted
against the revisionist is also without
jurisdiction. The impugned order passed by
the trial court is illegal, erroneous and
arbitrary and also against the provisions of
law, hence, the same is liable to be set
aside. In support of his submission, learned
counsel for the revisionist has relied upon
Section 179 of the Act as well as judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Y.
Abraham Ajith and others vs. Inspector of
Police, Chennai and another, 2004 (6)
Supreme 207.

6. On the other hand, supporting the
impugned judgment, Mr. Manish Tandon,
learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has
submitted that the victim in her statement
recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C.
has assigned specific role of committing rape
at various places by the revisionist for the
past several years, which exists within the
jurisdiction of Uttar Pradesh, thus, in view of
Section 178 Cr.P.C., the trial is well
maintainable in the eyes of law. The
revisionist is a man of criminal propensities
involved in several cases. During trial, the
prosecutrix was also attacked by the
revisionist for which an FIR has also been
lodged against the revisionist. He has further
submitted that trial court has rightly rejected
the application on legal grounds holding that
the application moved under Chapter XIII,
which provides ordinary place of inquiry and
trial and reliance has been placed upon
Section 178 Cr.P.C. which deals with place of
inquiry or trial. The trial court has clearly
held that though the cause of action shown in
the FIR are said to have happened at different
places and the investigation is conducted
within the jurisdiction of commission of
crime, which is said to be committed at
Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh. He has further
submitted that Section 178 Cr.P.C. clearly
deals with the situation and held that where
several acts done in different local areas, it
may be inquired into or tried by a court
having its jurisdiction, therefore, the trial
court has rightly and legally rejected the
application under Section 177 Cr.P.C. In
support of his submission, he has relied upon
the judgment of of this Court in the case of
Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of U.P.
and another, 2020 LawSuit (All) 459.

7. I have considered the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the material
available on record.

8. Chapter XIII of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Code")
deals with jurisdiction of the criminal
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
courts in inquiries and trials. Sections 177
to 179 Cr.P.C. are quoted as under:-

"177. Ordinary place of inquiry
and trial-. Every offence shall ordinarily
be inquired into and tried by a Court within
whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

178. Place of inquiry or trial. (a)
When it is uncertain in which of several
local areas an offence was committed, or
(b) where an offence is committed partly in
one local area and partly in another, or (c)
where an offence is a continuing one, and
continues to be committed in more local
areas than one, or (d) where it consists of
several acts done in different local areas, it
may be inquired into or tried by a Court
having jurisdiction over any of such local
areas.

179. Offence triable where act
is done or consequence ensues. When an
act is an offence by reason of anything
which has been done and of a consequence
which has ensued, the offence may be
inquired into or tried by a Court within
whose local jurisdiction such thing has
been done or such consequence has ensued.

9. From the above provisions, it is
clear that the normal rule is that the offence
shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried
by a court within whose local jurisdiction it
was committed. However, when it is
uncertain in which of several local areas an
offence was committed or where an offence
is committed partly in one local area and
partly in another or where an offence is a
continuing one, and continues to be
committed in more than one local area and
takes place in different local areas as per
Section 178 Cr.P.C. the Court having
jurisdiction over any of such local areas is
competent to inquire into and try the
offence. Section 179 Cr.P.C. makes it clear
that if anything happened as a consequence
of the offence, the same may be inquired
into or tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction such thing has been done or
such consequence has ensued.

10. In the light of the above, this
Court
has
critically
examined
the
allegations levelled in the complaint as well
as the statement of victim No. 2 recorded
by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and
also the statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. and found that the offence in this
case is said to have been committed in
more local areas and one of the local areas
being Chitrakoot, the court below at
Chitrakoot has jurisdiction to proceed with
the criminal case instituted therein.

11. In such circumstances, this Court
does not find any illegality in the order
impugned passed by the court below.
Hence, there is no force in this criminal
revision and the same is hereby dismissed.

12. No order as to costs.
----------
(2022)05ILR A276
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3547 of 2021

Yunus & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, Sri Prem
Shankar Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh