Vishwanath Gupta vs State Of Uttaranchal

3. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the special leave petition are that on the basis of written information of Sub Inspector Shyam Nath Pandey of Police Station Haldwani of District Nainital on 22.12. 2003, the first information report was registered under Section 364A IPC. There was a news item published in the Daily Dainik Jagran to the effect that one Ravi Varshney, Advocate, was pleading the matters of members of the gang of Prakash Pandeya alias P.P. and was in touch with them on telephone and cell phone. Shri Ravi Varshney, Advocate, had gone from Dehradoon to Lucknow by train along with one contractor named Anoop Samant and thereafter the family members of Ravi Varshney were receiving calls for ransom amount and it has also been stated that Ravi Varshney was abducted at Lucknow for ransom money. Thereafter, the investigation was taken up and the statement of Surendra Chandra Varshney, father of Ravi Varshney was recorded and in that statement it was alleged that the calls were received from the abductors at Nainital for the ransom money. It is alleged that thereafter two bodies one that of Anoop Samant and other that of Ravi Varshney were recovered from the factory of the accused under the Kotwali Police Station in District Unnao. The dead bodies were seized and panchnama was prepared at Unnao, U.P. Then an application was filed that the Nainital Court has no jurisdiction to frame the charges as the offence has been committed in the State of Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, the State of Uttaranchal has no territorial jurisdiction. The matter was taken up to this Court and this Court, by order dated 24.4.2006, declined to transfer the trial from Nainital to Lucknow. However, the Court left the question of territorial jurisdiction open to be decided by the appropriate forum. When the matter was taken up before this Court, the grievance was that the accused Petitioner was not likely to get a fair trial because none of the members of the Bar were going to take up the case of the accused- Petitioner. But an affidavit was filed by the Bar Association, Nainital, before this Court that they will provide sufficient legal assistance to the accused and on that basis the matter was disposed of. When the case was committed to the Additional Sessions Judge, again a question was raised of the territorial jurisdiction and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing both the parties, recorded a finding that mere receiving of telephone calls at Nainital from Lucknow demanding a ransom cannot be said that the offence was committed in Nainital and therefore the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 29.6.2006 held that in view of the provisions of Section 181 (2) of the Code or Criminal Procedure, the case should be tried in the Court located either in District Unnao or District Lucknow, in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The matter was taken up before the High Court and the High Court without examining the matter in that light, set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and dismissed the application on the basis of the order passed by this Court on 24.4.2006. The order passed by the High Court was an ex parte order. Aggrieved against that order present special leave petition.

Any offence of kidnapping or abduction may be inquired or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the person was kidnapped or abducted or was conveyed or concealed or detained. In case of kidnapping and abduction the local jurisdiction shall be where the person concerned has been abducted or kidnapped or was conveyed or concealed or detained. It is likely that a person has been kidnapped from one part of the country and kept in another part of the State. For example, if a person is kidnapped from Rajasthan and is kept in the State of Haryana, then both the Magistrate and Sessions Judge will have jurisdiction to try the offences. As regards the completion of Section 364A is concerned, something more is required for that offence. Section 364A was introduced in the IPC by the Criminal Amendment Act of 42 of 1993 which came into effect with from 22.5.1993 because of the increasing number of cases where the victim is abducted and a demand for money is raised with a threat perception or danger to the life on that person and that person is ultimately put to death. Such kind of offences are not covered under sub-section (2) of Section 181. It is not simply abduction or kidnapping. It is something more in ordinary case of abduction or kidnapping as defined in Sections 359 and 362. They are offence simplicitor of kidnapping and abduction. But here in the case of Section 364A something more is there that is, that a person was abducted from Lucknow and demand has been raised at Haldwani, Nainital with threat. If the amount is not paid to the abductor then the victim is likely to be put to death. In order to constitute an offence under Section 364A, all the ingredients have not taken place at Lucknow or Unnao. The two incidents took place in the State of Uttar Pradesh that is abduction and death of the victims but one of the ingredient took place that is threat was given at the house of the victims at Haldwani, Nainital demanding the ransom money otherwise the victim will be put to death. Therefore, one of the ingredients has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Haldwani, Nainital. Therefore, it is a case wherein the offence has taken place at three places i.e. at Haldwani, Nainital, where the threat to the life of the victim was given and demand of money was raised, the victim was abducted from Lucknow and he was ultimately put to death at Unnao. Therefore, the trial could be conducted in any of the local jurisdiction that is Haldwani, Nainital, in the State of Uttaranchal, Lucknow or Unnao, within the State of Uttar Pradesh. But in the present case the case was registered at police Station, Haldwani, and the investigation started at Haldwani therefore the local jurisdiction to try the offence shall be at Haldwani/Nainital. If the investigation agency wants to prosecute or file a challan at Haldwani/Nainital Court, then District Nainital will have jurisdiction to try the matter. It is wrong to say that Additional Sessions Judge, Third Fast Track Court, Nainital has no jurisdiction. The view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge. Third Fast Track Court, Nainital is wrong and we set aside the same though High Court, has set aside but for wrong reasons. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with this matter. We dismiss the special leave petition and direct that Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital will have jurisdiction to try the offence.