# Rameshwar Prasad Yadav v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1610 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-05-17 - **Bench:** Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rameshwar-prasad-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-43794 - **Pages:** 6 ## Headnote Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh. The trial was pending before the Court of the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Gorakhpur. A supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant was taken on record. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State were heard at length. The entire record of the case was perused by the Court. The relief sought was transfer of the trial from Gorakhpur to the Sessions Court at Allahabad, primarily on the ground of inconvenience to the accused and alleged statutory competence of Sessions Judges under a Government Order dated 19 February 2008. 5 All. Rameshwar Prasad Yadav Vs State Of U.P. 1611 The Court examined the prayer in light of statutory provisions governing territorial jurisdiction, special courts under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the scope of transfer of criminal trials, particularly balancing the convenience of the accused against mandatory jurisdictional rules. Procedure: The applicant, an accused in a corruption case, approached the High Court by way of a criminal transfer application. The procedural foundation of the application rested upon the alleged availability of jurisdiction with Sessions Courts pursuant to a State Government notification empowering Sessions and Additional Sessions Judges to try cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court scrutinised the procedural permissibility of such transfer under Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which governs territorial jurisdiction of criminal courts. The Court also examined Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, dealing with appointment and jurisdiction of Special Judges. The issue before the Court was not merely procedural convenience but the legality of transferring a special trial to a district having no territorial nexus with the commission of the offence. The Court adopted a strict procedural approach, holding that statutory provisions override personal inconvenience of an accused. Penal Sections: Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 177-189, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Case Law Om Prakash Singh and another v. State of U.P., Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 21 of 2016, decided on 27 January 2015 (distinguished) Head Notes: Criminal Trial - Transfer of case - Territorial jurisdiction - Prevention of Corruption Act - Government Order empowering Sessions Judges - Scope and limitation - Convenience of accused - Not a determining factor - Trial must ordinarily be held ## Text 1610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 28. In view of the above, it is hereby held that first appellate court had properly and correctly appreciated the available facts, circumstances and adduced evidences, and thereafter gave its correct finding by reversing the judgment of trial court and allowing the appeal and dismissing the original suit. There appears no factual or legal error in the impugned judgment of first appellate court. 29. On examination of the reasoning recorded by the trial court, which are affirmed by the first appellate court in first appeal, I am of the view that the judgments of the lower courts are well reasoned, and are based upon proper appreciation of the entire evidences on record. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law was involved in the case before the High Court. No perversity or infirmity is found in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court that has been affirmed by the first appellate court to warrant interference in this appeal. None of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiffs can be sustained. Therefore, said judgments are hereby confirmed. 30. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J. Transfer Application (Criminal) No.- 172 Of 2016 Rameshwar Prasad Yadav ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel For the Applicant: Murtuza Ali, Imtiyaj Ali Counsel For the Opposite Party: Government Advocate Proceedings: The present Transfer Application (Criminal) was moved under the inherent and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court seeking transfer of Special Trial No. 124 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 10 of 2016, under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh. The trial was pending before the Court of the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Gorakhpur. A supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant was taken on record. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State were heard at length. The entire record of the case was perused by the Court. The relief sought was transfer of the trial from Gorakhpur to the Sessions Court at Allahabad, primarily on the ground of inconvenience to the accused and alleged statutory competence of Sessions Judges under a Government Order dated 19 February 2008. 5 All. Rameshwar Prasad Yadav Vs State Of U.P. 1611 The Court examined the prayer in light of statutory provisions governing territorial jurisdiction, special courts under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the scope of transfer of criminal trials, particularly balancing the convenience of the accused against mandatory jurisdictional rules. Procedure: The applicant, an accused in a corruption case, approached the High Court by way of a criminal transfer application. The procedural foundation of the application rested upon the alleged availability of jurisdiction with Sessions Courts pursuant to a State Government notification empowering Sessions and Additional Sessions Judges to try cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court scrutinised the procedural permissibility of such transfer under Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which governs territorial jurisdiction of criminal courts. The Court also examined Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, dealing with appointment and jurisdiction of Special Judges. The issue before the Court was not merely procedural convenience but the legality of transferring a special trial to a district having no territorial nexus with the commission of the offence. The Court adopted a strict procedural approach, holding that statutory provisions override personal inconvenience of an accused. Penal Sections: Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 177-189, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Case Law Om Prakash Singh and another v. State of U.P., Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 21 of 2016, decided on 27 January 2015 (distinguished) Head Notes: Criminal Trial - Transfer of case - Territorial jurisdiction - Prevention of Corruption Act - Government Order empowering Sessions Judges - Scope and limitation - Convenience of accused - Not a determining factor - Trial must ordinarily be held where offence is committed. A criminal trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act must ordinarily be conducted by the Special Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the offence was committed. A Government Order empowering Sessions and Additional Sessions Judges to try corruption cases is confined to their respective districts and does not confer inter-district jurisdiction. Mere residence of the accused at a different place or personal inconvenience cannot override mandatory statutory provisions governing territorial jurisdiction. Transfer to a district having no nexus with the offence is impermissible. However, transfer to the district where the offence occurred is legally justified. Facts: Applicant was an accused in Special Trial No. 124 of 2016. Case registered as Case Crime No. 10 of 2016 at P.S. Kotwali, District Azamgarh. Allegation of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Applicant was allegedly caught red-handed by the trap team at Gangotri Hotel, Azamgarh. Trial was pending before Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Gorakhpur. Applicant sought transfer of trial to Allahabad citing residence and distance. Contentions: 1612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES On behalf of the Applicant: Sessions and Additional Sessions Judges are empowered to try corruption cases under G.O. dated 19.02.2008. Applicant presently resides at Allahabad. Distance between Gorakhpur and Allahabad is approximately 400 km causing hardship. Reliance placed on earlier transfer order in Om Prakash Singh case. On behalf of the State: Transfer application not opposed but left to discretion of the Court. Analysis: Territorial Jurisdiction: Under Chapter XIII Cr.P.C., the place of trial is ordinarily the place where the offence is committed. Special Judge under P.C. Act: Section 4(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act mandates trial by the Special Judge within whose jurisdiction the offence occurred. Government Order dated 19.02.2008: The empowerment of Sessions Judges is limited to offences pertaining to their own districts. Distinction from relied precedent: In Om Prakash Singh, the offence related to the transferee district, unlike the present case. Convenience of accused: Residence of the accused at Allahabad is irrelevant for determining jurisdiction. Place of commission: Offence admittedly committed at Azamgarh with no consequence at Allahabad. Legality of partial transfer: Transfer from Gorakhpur to Azamgarh aligns with statutory mandate and reduces hardship. Conclusion: The High Court held that transfer of the trial to Allahabad was legally untenable, as Allahabad had no territorial nexus with the offence. Statutory provisions governing criminal jurisdiction and special trials under the Prevention of Corruption Act do not permit transfer merely for the convenience of the accused. However, considering that the offence was committed at Azamgarh and in view of the Government Order dated 19 February 2008, the Court partly allowed the application and directed transfer of the trial from Gorakhpur to the Court of Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Azamgarh. The District Judge, Gorakhpur was directed to transmit the record accordingly. (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.) 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record. 3. This application has been moved to transfer Special Trial No. 124 of 2016, State Vs. Rameshwar Prasad Yadav, in Case Crime No. 10 of 2016, under Sections 7/13(1)(D)/13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh pending in the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption Court, Gorakhpur to the Sessions Court, Allahabad for disposal. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a Government Order bearing No. 444/Ch.Pu. 9-2008-31(8)/08 Lucknow dated 19.2.2008 was issued by which each and every Sessions Judge and Additional Sessions Judge was vested with the power to decide the cases 5 All. Rameshwar Prasad Yadav Vs State Of U.P. 1613 related to Anti Corruption Act of his own district. It has been submitted that the applicant is presently residing at Allahabad and the distance between Gorakhpur to Allahabad is around 400 kms. Hence it is very difficult for the applicant to go from Allahabad to Gorakhpur to attend the court proceedings after covering a distance of 400 Kms. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the similar case namely Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 21 of 2016 (Om Prakash Singh and another Vs. State of U.P.) has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 27.1.2015 and this Court has transferred the case in question from Gorakhpur to Gonda. On the aforesaid ground it has been prayed that the Special Trial No. 124 of 2016 be transferred from Gorakhpur to Allahabad. 5. Learned A.G.A. has not opposed the transfer application. 6. Considered the submissions in the light of relevant legal provisions. 7. From perusal of the record shows that the facts of this case is different from the facts of abovementioned Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 21 of 2016 as has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant. In that case the offence in question relate to the district Gonda itself and in this case the offence in question relate to district Azamgarh and not Allahabad. 8. Chapter XIII of Cr.P.C. (inclusive of Sections 177 to 189 Cr.P.C. ) which is also applicable to the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act provides for territorial jurisdiction of a criminal case according to which the place of trial shall ordinarily be the place where the offence has been committed. 9. Sub-section 2 of Section 4 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 also provides as under : "4(2)- Every offence specified in sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall be tried by the special Judge for the area within which it was committed, or, as the case may be, by the special Judge appointed for the case, or where there are more special Judges than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government." 10. There is no doubt that vide G.O. dated 19.2.2008 all the Sessions and Additional Sessions Judges have been given the power to hear and decide the cases relating to Anti Corruption Act but all the Sessions Judges and Addl. Sessions Judges have been authorised to hear the cases pertaining to their own districts only and not of any other districts. The G.O. dated 19.2.2008 is quoted below: "उिर प्रदेश सरकार गृह पुडलस अिुभाग-9 संख्याः 444/छः-पु-9-2008-31(8)/08 लििऊः डदिांक: 19 फरवरी, 2008 अडिसूर्िा 1614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES प्रकीणग सावारण िण्ड अडिडियम 1987 (अडिडियम संख्या 10 सि् 1897) की िारा-21 24 के साथ गडठत भ्रष्टार्ार डिवारण अडिडियम 1988 (अडिडियम संख्या 49 सि 1988) की िारा 3 की उपिारा (1) के अिीि शखक्त का प्रयोग करके और इस डिडमि अडिसूर्िाओं / आदेशोसंख्या-3246 / सात न्याया-2-94-332 जी /91 डदिांक फरवरी 1995. संख्या-546 / सात-न्याय-2/2001218/75 डदिांक 17 मई. 2001 संख्याः- पीD 3355 (डद्वतीय) / 11ए-112/196 डदिांक 07 डसतम्बर 1961. संख्या-3386/सात / न्याय-22000-85 जी/98 डदिांक 2 िवम्बर, 2000 और समय-समय पर यथा संशोडित शासिादेश संख्या-4342/आठ-9789/72 डदिांक 11 मार्ग, 1977 को अग्रसर करते हये राज्यपाल इस अडिसूर्िा के सरकारी गजर् में प्रकाडशत होिे के डदिॉक से भ्रष्टार्ार अडिडियम 1988 (अडिडियम संख्या 49 सि् 1988) के प्रयोगिाथग समस्त सेशि न्यायािीश और अपर सेशि न्यायािीश को उस डजले या उि डजलों के डलए डजस पर व डजि पर ये सेशि न्यायािीश या अपर सेशि न्यायािीश के रूप में अडिकाररता का प्रयोग करते हैं पदेि डवशेष न्यायािीश डियुक्त करते हैं। आज्ञा से महेश कुमार गुप्ता सडर्व।" 11. The use of the words "उस डजले के डलए या उि डजलों के डलए डजिपर वे अडिकाररता रिते हों।" clearly shows that the sessions judges/addl. Sessions judges have the jurisdiction over their respective district only and not on any other districts. 12. A perusal of all the aforesaid relevant provisions of Cr.P.C, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the G.O. Dated 19.2.2008 clearly shows that every offence under this Act shall be tried within such area where it has been committed. 13. None of the aforesaid provisions provides that an offence may be tried at a place where the accused resides. The applicant is an accused in the case concerned and the record shows that the trap team has apprehended the applicant red handed at Gangotri Hotel, Azamgarh. Thus the offence in question has been committed at Azamgarh and even no consequence of this offence has ensued at Allahabad. The offence is undisputedly committed at district Azamgarh and Allahabad has no concern with the offence and only on this ground that the accused-applicant is presently residing at Allahabad, the trial cannot be transferred to district Allahabad at his convenience. Prayer for transfer of this trial to Allahabad is fully misconceived and cannot be granted. 14. However, in wake of the G.O. dated 19.2.2008 and considering the fact that the offence in question has been committed at District Azamgarh, which is also situated at a lessor distance in comparison to district Gorakhpur, the transfer application is partly allowed and Special Trial No. 124 of 2016, State Vs. Rameshwar Prasad Yadav, in Case Crime No. 10 of 2016, under Sections 7/13(1)(D)/13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh is transferred from district Gorakhpur to district Azamgarh. 5 All. Dinesh Kumar Vs Dy. Registrar, Coop. Society, Meerut & Ors. 1615 15. Let a copy of this order be sent to the District Judge, Gorakhpur to transmit the record of Special Trial No. 124 of 2016, State Vs. Rameshwar Prasad Yadav, to the court of Special Judge (Anti Caorruption), Azamgarh for disposal in accordance with law. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. Writ A No.- 21278 Of 1997 Dinesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Dy. Registrar, Coop. Society, Meerut & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Ashok Kahre, S.K. Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: SC, G. Sinha, Vinod Sinha Proceedings- The writ petition was instituted assailing the order of dismissal dated 19.05.1997 passed by the Managing Committee of Charthawal Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Muzaffarnagar, consequent upon disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, an Accountant of the Society. The dismissal followed a resolution dated 16.05.1997 and was stated to have received prior approval of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Meerut Division, vide letter dated 02.04.1997. At the stage of admission, the Court, by order dated 08.07.1997, expressly reserved the issue of maintainability of the writ petition to be decided at the time of final hearing. During the course of arguments, the Court revisited the said issue and, by order dated 08.04.2016, required the petitioner to address the question whether a writ petition would lie against a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society, whose service conditions were not governed by any statutory regulations. The petitioner relied upon judicial precedents concerning prior approval by statutory authorities before imposition of major penalties and urged that the involvement of the Deputy Registrar rendered the action amenable to writ jurisdiction. The respondents opposed the petition contending that the Society was a private body, not 'State' or 'authority' under Articles 12 or 226 of the Constitution, and that the Registrar's circular dated 18.02.1991 lacked statutory force. Procedure- Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on allegations of unauthorized absence, acts contrary to the interests of the Society, failure to deposit an amount of Rs.1,41,450.65/- with interest, indiscipline, and violation of administrative directions. An enquiry was conducted, culminating in findings of guilt. The Managing Committee resolved to dismiss the petitioner from service. The resolution was followed by an order of dismissal dated 19.05.1997, purportedly after obtaining approval from the Deputy Registrar.