IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Transfer Petition No. 03 of 2009 [ State of Uttarakhand ...…………. Petitioner Versus Pooran Singh Negi and 2 others. ...………… Respondents Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate for the State. Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate and Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate are present to assist the Court. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate present for the State. Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate and Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate are present to assist the Court as directed by this Court vide order dated 22.04.2009. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3) A communication is received by the Registry of this Court from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar, stating that he had committed Criminal Case No. 498 of 2008 (Crime No. 715 of 2008); State Vs. Pooran Singh Negi and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 302, 201, 394, 427, 411 of 2 I.P.C. Police station Kotwali Bageshwar, to the court of Sessions Judge, Bageshwar. It appears that on behalf of the State an application was moved before the Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, that said case be transferred to the court of Special Judge (U.P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act), Nainital. The Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, vide his order dated 12.12.2008, returned the record of the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate directing him to send the record to the Special Judge (U.P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act), Nainital, for trial. The Sessions Judge opined that the committal of the case to the Sessions Judge, Bageshwar was wrong as it had no jurisdiction to try after the court is created under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act. 4) Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, provides that State Government may if it considers necessary so to do in the interest of speedy trial of the offences under this Act, for the whole or any part of the State, constitute one or more Special Courts. Undoubtedly, the special court is constituted at Nainital for the trial of the offences punishable under the aforesaid Act relating to the District of Almora, Bageshwar, Champawat, Pithoragarh, Nainital and Udham Singh Nagar. 3 5) Sub-Section (1) of Section 8 of aforesaid Act reads as under: “When trying any offence punishable under this Act a Special Court may also try any other offence which the accused may, under any other law for the time being in force, be charged at the same trial.” 6) Having gone through the relevant provision of law of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, and after hearing learned Government Advocate and learned counsel appointed to assist the court, this Court finds that learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, has taken an erroneous view in the matter. What Sub-section (1) of Section 8 permits a special court to try an offence other than the offences under the Act is the one which relates to ‘same trial’. Undoubtedly, any offence which is punishable under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, along with any other offence mentioned in the same charge sheet, can be tried by the special judge constituted under Section 5 of the Act. But, it does not mean that a trial in respect of an offence shown in the gangster chart which is not part of the ‘same trial’ need be sent by the courts having territorial jurisdiction, to try such offences, to the special court. 7) That being so, the order dated 12.12.2008, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, in Sessions Trial 4 No. 17 of 2008; State Vs. Pooran Singh and others relating to offences punishable under Section 302, 202, 394, 427, 411 of I.P.C., Police Station Bageshwar, is hereby quashed. The Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, is directed to try the case from the stage it was committed to him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar. Since, the accused are in jail, the Registry is directed to send back the record of the case immediately to the Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, for further trial with information to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar, in reply to his letter dated 10.12.2008. 8) The Criminal Misc. Petition No. 03 of 2009 stands disposed of. (Both Urgency Application No. 922 of 2009 as well as Misc. Application No. 1075 of 2009 stand disposed of). [ (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [ Dt. October 09, 2009. H. Negi