IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45248 of 2007 RAM NATH PANDIT Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Kumar. For the State : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha. ---------- 2/ 23.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner questions the maintainability of Barauni P.S. Case no. 182/2006 under Sections 466, 468 and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code before the C.J.M., Begusarai on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner is stated to be the „Pairvikar‟ of the accused, Ashok Kumar Rai. The petitioner was also the deponent in the bail application Cr. Misc. no. 24719/2002 filed on his behalf concealing an earlier bail application Cr. Misc. no. 27620/2001 filed in the High Court on behalf of the Ashok Kumar Rai. This Court while hearing the bail former application for that reason directed an F.I.R. to be lodged leading to the institution of the present case. Learned counsel submits that the entire cause of action is based in Patna and therefore, the prosecution is not maintainable at Begusarai. The bail application was filed at Patna, the petitioner swore the 2 affidavit at Patna, the fraud, if any, was discovered at Patna. He relies upon two Judgments of the Supreme Court reported in 2000(7) SCC 640 (NAVINCHANDRA N. MAJITHIA Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS) and 2004(8) SCC 100 (Y. ABRAHAM AJITH AND OTHERS Versus INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER). Learned counsel for the State submits that the Vakalatnama, which was given in pursuance of which the second bail application came to be filed, was signed and delivered at Begusarai by the accused, Ashok Kumar Rai, now disputing and denying that he had given any Vakalatnama to the present petitioner. The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure falling for consideration are sections 177 and 178 which are quoted hereinafter; 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 3 inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. It would, thus, be seen that section 177 Cr. P.C. provides that every offence was ordinarily required to be tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. This word “Ordinarily” has been clarified in Section 178 of the Cr. P.C. In 2004(8) S.C.C. 100 (Y. ABRAHAM AJITH AND OTHERS Versus INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER), the Supreme Court while discussing the words “cause of action” has described the same in the following languages at paragraph-14, 15 and 16 :- 14. It is settled law that cause of action consists of a bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a court of law. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the allegedly affected party a right to claim relief against the opponent. It must include some act done by the latter since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise. 15. The expression “cause of action” has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the proceeding including not only the alleged infraction, but also the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously, the expression means every fact, which it would be necessary for the complainant to prove, it traversed, in order to support his right or grievance to 4 the judgment of the court. Every fact, which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence, which is necessary to prove such fact, comprises in “cause of action”. 16. The expression “cause of action” has sometimes been employed to convey the restricted idea of facts or circumstances which constitute either the infringement or the basis of a right and no more. In a wider and more comprehensive sense, it has been used to denote the whole bundle of material facts. On the facts of the present case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the cause of action taken as a bundle of evidence consisting of different parties originates at Begusarai. If the accused Ashok Kumar Rai did not sign any Vakalatnama at Begusarai, the allegations arising thereupon at Patna would have to be decided in that background. If he did sign the Vakalatnama at Begusarai, the allegations of the occurrence at Patna shall have to be seen in a different context. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in holding that the present is a case which comes clearly within the meaning of Section 178(b). The case of NAVINCHANDRA N. MAJITHIA Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS relied upon by the petitioner is clearly distinguishable on facts inasmuch as no part of the cause of action occurred at Shillong. The entire transaction of the shares had been 5 done at Bombay. Only for the reason that the Company in question was registered at Shillong that the Complaint filed at Shillong. It was in that background that the Apex Court held that the accused could question the Criminal case filed at Shillong in a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The limited reliance on the said Judgment for the purpose of appropriate directions to transfer the case to the Court at Patna also does not impress this Court. This Court finds no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. S.B.P. (Navin Sinha, J.)