IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision 203 of 2004 Date of Decision 13th May ,2011 ________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Petitioner. Versus Saroj Kumari & others ….Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy A.G. For the Respondents: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. ______________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral) The State is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Solan on 13.2.2004 directing the challan to be returned to the Superintendent of Police, Enforcement, Shimla because according to the learned Judge, on the facts as disclosed, the offence, if any, had taken place at Shimla. 2. The Court notes the facts of the case which are that one Smt. Saroj is alleged to have sought employment in the Education Department on the basis of forged/ fake JBT/B.T. C. certificate etc. issued by one Shri Naresh Chand Chopra, the 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Principal of Union Teachers Training Centre, Rajpur Town (Punjab). The allegations were that she used the said fake certificate and was selected by the Public Service Commission and one Shri Prem Sarup who was the then District Primary Education Officer, Solan, without verifying the said certificate, gave the appointment to her as teacher. FIR 23/87 of the Enforcement Department was registered. The Court disposes the case in the following terms: “In my opinion, the alleged offence was committed at Shimla where the alleged fake certificate was presented to the H.P. Public Service Commission and an un-due advantage was gained by her by securing the post of teacher in the Education Department of Government of Himachal Pradesh. Therefore, by virtue of Section 179 readwith Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the matter is required to be presented before the appropriate court. Hence, the challan be and is returned to theS.P. Enforcement, Shimla through learned Public Prosecutor, Solan for its presentation before the Appropriate Court alongwith copy of this order, as this court, in my opinion lacks terrotorial jurisdiction. The proceedings of this court and the zimni orders of court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh be returned and consigned to the record room.” I do not appreciate as to what the Enforcement Department is fighting for. It is only a question of territorial jurisdiction. Once the Court had expressed its opinion that the prosecution could be launched elsehwere what was the necessity of fighting or keeping the case in abeyance for four years? It is after a period of seven years when this case has come up before me for adjudication. Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any error of jurisdiction 3 of the Court having exercised such jurisdiction illegally nor any illegality in the order. In these circumstances, I hold that the order passed by the learned trial Court is in accordance with law. Revision petition stands disposed of. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged. It will be open to the State to present the challan in the Court having the territorial jurisdiction. May 13th , 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 4