IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.27416-M of 2009 Date of Decision:25.1.2011 Kamar Ali .... Petitioner Versus NFC Chemical Limited and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a direction was issued to the trial Court by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2005 passed in Crl. M. No.63127-M of 2005 to decide preliminary issue with respect to territorial jurisdiction. However, without complying with the said direction, the trial Court proceeded with the matter. Accordingly, vide order dated 15.2.2010, the Presiding Officer was directed to submit a report. In pursuance to the same, report of the Presiding Officer has been received and the same is placed on record. It is evident from the said report dated 18.3.2010 that the directions was issued by this Court way back in the year 2005. However, no plea with respect to territorial jurisdiction was raised by the accused and the request made by the accused for closing the evidence of the complainant was declined and complaint was adjourned to 20.5.2006. Accordingly, accused waived of his right of raising plea Crl. M. No.27416-M of 2009 -2- before trial Court for territorial jurisdiction. It is further submitted that subsequently, an application raising plea of territorial jurisdiction was filed on 3.5.2009 at belated stage. The said report is perused. Without commenting upon the same, it would be appropriate that if the earlier order is complied with and the question of territorial jurisdiction is decided. The question of territorial jurisdiction is an important issue. The evidence of the complainant is complete. Learned counsel for the complainant states that he has no objection if the said direction to decide the issue with respect to territorial jurisdiction is issued subject to the condition that the same should be decided within a particular time. In view of the above and keeping in mind the earlier order dated 18.11.2005, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to decide the application dated 2/3.5.2009 wherein preliminary issue with respect to territorial jurisdiction is involved and the said question be decided within 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. However, in case the petitioner moves an application for his personal exemption before the trial Court, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. 25.1.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE