Reserved Judgment HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No.85 of 2004 Sanjay Dalmia S/o Sri Vishnu Hari Dalmia, Resident of Tees January Marg, New Delhi …… Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and two others. …. Respondents Mrs. Tahmina Punvani, Senior Advocate assisted by: Ms. Menka Tripathi, Adv. for the revisionist. Sri Arvind Vashishtha, learned counsel for the C.B.I., Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. GA for the State of Uttarakhand respondent no.1. Dated: August 1, 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This criminal revision preferred, under section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) is directed against the order dated 24.05.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate CBI, Dehradun in C.B.I. vs. R.K. Singh and ors. R.C. no. 1(S)/95- SCB-II, whereby the Judicial Magistrate rejected the application moved by the accused/revisionist challenging the jurisdiction of the Court and fixed the matter for hearing for framing of charges. 2. I have heard Mrs. Tahmina Punvani, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Arvind Vashishtha, learned counsel for the C.B.I. as well as Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State and perused the record of the case. 3. Brief facts of the case are that under the orders of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the CBI lodged a First Information Report under the R.C. no. 1(S)/95-SCB-II, against the accused persons including the revisionist Sanjay Dalmia. After the investigation was completed the C.B.I. submitted charge sheet u/s 120B read with Sections 193, 211, 218 & 420 I.P.C. against the accused persons including the revisionist, before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun the erstwhile State of U.P. (now State of Uttarakhand). The charge sheet, after being received, was registered in the Court of 2 Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun and thereafter the Trial Court took cognizance of the offence. 4. At the stage of framing of charges the revisionist moved an application before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun challenging the jurisdiction of the Court with the averments that the Court of Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun shall not, at all, have jurisdiction to try, entertain and commit to the Court of Sessions. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist has argued that the Court of Judicial Magistrate CBI, Dehradun has no jurisdiction to try the said case, as the alleged crime is said to have committed outside the State of Uttarakhand. 6. On the other hand emphasizing on the Notification no. 280/Admn. A/2003 dated December 5,2003 issued by this High Court, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has contended that on the basis of this Notification the jurisdiction to try, to enquire into and to commit the case to the Court of Sessions exclusively vests with the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, CBI, Dehradun. The Notification no. 280/Admn. A/2003 dated December 5,2003 issued by this High Court, is being reproduced hereunder:- NOTIFICATION No. 280/Admn.-A-/2003 dated December 05,2003 “Pursuant to the Government Notification no. 858/Grih-3-55- T.C./C.B.C.I.D./2003, Dehradun Dated:Oct. 07,2003, in exercise of the powers vested under Section 11(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act no. 2 of 1974), the High Court is pleased to appoint Sri Shahanshah Mohd. Dilber Danish, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class (C.B.I.), Dehradun to exercise jurisdiction over the cases pending in the Court of Special Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dehradun and also to try or enquire into and to commit to the Court of Sessions all such case arising within the local area of jurisdiction of districts of Almora, Bageshwar, Chamoli, Champawat, Dehradun, Haridwar, Nainital, Pauri Garhwal, Pithoragarh, Rudraprayag, Tehri Garhwal, Udham Singh Nagar and Uttarkashi in which investigation are made or charge-sheet filed by the Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 (Act no. XXXV of 1946).” 7. In view of the aforesaid Notification dated December 5, 2003, learned counsel for the CBI has contended that the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (CBI), Dehradun has 3 been empowered to exercise jurisdiction over the cases pending in the Special Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dehradun, therefore the stand taken by the learned Sr. Counsel for the revisionist is not tenable as in the above Notification the words “cases pending” have been specifically referred to and on the basis of this Notification, the Trial Court has rejected the application of the revisionist- accused, which in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the Notification referred above, is justified and correct. This Court is convinced with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the CBI. In the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that by virtue of the Notification dated December 5, 2003 issued by this Court, the jurisdiction to try and hear all such cases pending before that Court, vests upon the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, CBI, Dehradun. On bare perusal of the impugned order, there appears no illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the order dated 24.05.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. 9. Interim stay order dated 04.06.2004 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 01.08.2008 NCM: