IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.104 of 2009 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAHARSA 2. VIJENDRA YADAV SON OF LATE SUKH RAM YADAV, RESIDENT OF MURLI, P.S. KISHANPUR, DISTRICT SUPAUL, AT PRESENT CABINET MINISTER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA …….PETITIONERS Versus CHHATRI YADAV SON OF SITARAM YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DUDHAILA, P.S. SAHARSA (SONBARSA KACHAHARI) DISTRICT- SAHARSA ………OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 5 08.4.2009 The instant revision application preferred by the State of Bihar is directed against the order dated 16.12.2008, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa in criminal Revision No.252 of 2008 whereby the order dated 24.10.2008 passed by the A.C.J.M., Saharsa in Complaint Case No.1356C of 2008 has been set aside and the jurisdiction of the court at Supaul for taking cognizance in Complaint Case was cancelled and the same was transferred to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa. The facts of the case in short is that one Chhatri Yadav filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa alleging that on account of lapses and callousness of the accused persons there was a breach at Kushaha Bandh of Kosi River which caused devastating flood in the areas causing loss of lives and properties. The learned Magistrate returned the plaint for presenting it before the Court of Birpur in Supaul district which according to him was the appropriate court having jurisdiction in the matter. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the complainant filed revision before the Sessions Judge, Saharsa being Criminal 2 Revision No.252 of 2008. It is relevant to note here that the jurisdiction of Saharsa Sessions Division also extends to Supaul district. According to the complainant the Saharsa Court had jurisdiction in respect of offence alleged in the complaint. Learned Sessions Court set aside the order and directed the Saharsa Court to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. The State challenged the aforesaid order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa on two counts. He firstly submitted that the accused petitioners ought to have been heard before passing final order in the revision application preferred by the complainant. Secondly, the Sessions Judge while transferring the case also took into consideration that the accused person being a Cabinet Minister is a very influential person and the complainant has apprehension that he may not get justice at Supaul. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party, however, submitted that the facts disclosed in the complaint conferred jurisdiction to Saharsa Court to entertain complaint. He submitted that the offence took place and caused havoc within the jurisdiction of Saharsa district and as such the Chief Judicial Magistrate was competent to entertain the complaint. This court this finds that the Sessions Judge, Saharsa also took into account the position of the accused and the influence that he may exercise while passing the impugned order. The Sessions Judge ought to have determined the issue on the basis of the facts contained in the complaint in respect of territorial jurisdiction alone 3 KHAN within its revisional power under sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., and as such the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Revision No.252 of 2008 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is thus set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Sessions Judge, Saharsa for fresh consideration of the matter in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)