Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1534 of 2006
PETITIONER:
Asit Bhattacharjee
RESPONDENT:
M/s. Hanuman Prasad Ojha & Ors
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/05/2007
BENCH:
S.B. Sinha & C.K. Thakker
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. Appellant herein was awarded contracts for exporting wheat, rice etc.
upon purchasing the same from Food Corporation of India as also from open
market, by the State Trading Corporation of India, Chennai and Kolkata as
also West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation Limited.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein allegedly approached him for appointment
as its agent to arrange and supply foodgrains i.e. wheat and rice of the Food
Corporation of India and send the same to different destinations in West
Bengal on commission basis. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said
agreement, Respondent No. 1 under the direction of Respondent No. 2 used
to make arrangement of railway rakes at different railway stations in the
State of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttaranchal, Madhya Pradesh and
Haryana for export of rice and wheat from Food Corporation of India to
Bangladesh for and on behalf of the appellant. Allegedly, in course of
rendition such services, respondents committed various acts of breach of
trust, cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy. One of their employees was
also assaulted. A complaint petition was filed by the Appellant Company
before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata purported to be under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on or about
15.10.2004 inter alia alleging that a criminal conspiracy was entered into by
and between accused No. 2 with accused Nos. 3 to 12 with a view to cheat
the complainant Company and/or dishonestly misappropriate a huge amount
of Rs. 1,62,32,837.00 by making forged and false documents, fraudulently
preparing its letter heads and seals and using the same, committed breach of
trust and withdrew the refund amount of Rs. 1,55,07,928.00
2. It is not in dispute that the said purported acts were committed outside
the State of West Bengal and principally in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
3. The bankers of the appellant company issued a draft of Rs.
1,63,536.00 in favour of District Manager, Food Corporation of India,
Sitapur which was also allegedly misappropriated by the concerned
respondents.
4. One of the indent receipts out of the 30 indents amounting to
Rs. 4,50,000.00 was lost by an employee of the appellant while travelling
and the accused No. 6 representing accused Nos. 1 and 2 withdrew the
amount in question by using forged indemnity bond and letter head of the
Company and, thus, a sum of Rs. 4,50,000.00 was misappropriated by the
accused persons. The said offence was also allegedly committed at
Iradatgunj in the State of U.P. On behalf of the appellant, accused No. 2
allegedly deposited indent money in respect of 40 indents at Hardoi, out of
which also some amount was misappropriated by the accused persons.
Hardoi is also in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Demand draft issued by the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9
bankers of the appellant viz. Union Bank of India and Punjab National Bank
in favour of the District Manager, Food Corporation of India had also
allegedly been misappropriated.
5. Various other alleged criminal misconducts on the part of the accused
persons were said to have been committed in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
6. We may at this juncture notice some of the allegations made in the
said complaint petition.
"8. According to Railway procedure, for
allotment of railway rake, the party concerned shall
have to pay Rs. 15,000.00 as indent money for
registration of rake, for which Railway issue Money
Receipt. Allotment of rake is made accordingly
after the announcement of quota from the Railway
Headquarters. The indentor is free to withdraw the
indent money any time after ten days from the date
of indenting, without any liability. Accordingly,
Accused No. 2 collected total Rs. 4,91,39,748.00 out
of which Rs. 1,55,07,928.00 was paid by Demand
Draft favoring the concerned Railway authority and
balance amount of Rs. 3,36,31,820.00 paid to
Accused No. Hanuman Prasad Ojha. All the
Demand Draft in favour of the Railway Authorities
were issued for your petitioner’s Company."
7. Paragraph 16 of the complaint petition deals with assault and criminal
intimidation of an employee of the appellant viz. Subodh Singh, at Kanpur.
8. Paragraph 17 of the complaint petition reads as under:-
"17. It appears that under the leadership of
Accused No. 2 all the Accused Persons committed
serious crimes viz. preparing forged documents by
printing Letter Pad and forging the Seal of your
petitioner’s company and forged authorization
letters and collected refund amount from the
Railway to the tune of Rs. 1,55,07,928.00 from the
Railway Authorities of different Railway Station
and fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated
Rs. 1,63,536.00 for which Demand Draft was
handed over to Accused No. 2 to deposit to the
District Manager, Food Corporation of India,
Sitapur for cost of the materials exported by your
petitioner’s company on behalf of the State Trading
Corporation Ltd., Chennai. But the Accused No. 2
dishonestly deposited the said draft in the account of
Nafed India Ltd. with Food Corporation of India and
also the Accused Persons fraudulently and
dishonestly utilized indent money of your
petitioner’s company amounting to Rs. 3,57,810.00
for the payment of the railway freight of AK
Industries and Lavi Industries. Accused persons
fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated the
amount of Rs. 22,03,563.00 of your petitioner’s
Company by depositing demand draft to District
Manager, Food Corporation of India, Jhansi in the
account of WBECSC Limited instead of depositing
in the account of The State Trading Corporation of
India Ltd., Chennai towards cost of material. As
such all the Accused Persons have misappropriated
and/or cheated the complainant company for a sum
of Rs. 1,62,32,837.00."
9. Appellant in the said complaint petition further stated;
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9
"18. Thus the Accused Persons in collusion and
connivance with each other, committed forgery,
cheating, criminal breach of trust, dishonest
misappropriation etc. etc. and are liable to be
prosecuted under section 120B/420/406/465/467/
468/471 of the Indian Penal Code.
19. That this Ld. Court has got jurisdiction to try
this case as the representation of accused No. 2 was
made within the jurisdiction of this Ld. Court and
the accused persons were to account for at this office
of the complainant’s company which is also within
the jurisdiction of this Ld. Court."
10. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate upon consideration of the
said complaint directed the Officer-in-Charge of Shakespeare Sarani Police
Station, Kolkata to make an investigation into the allegations contained
therein. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said direction, investigations
had been carried out. As the respondents did not appear before the Court,
warrants of arrest had also been issued by the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Kolkata.
11. Respondents herein filed a criminal writ petition before the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad on or about 1.3.2005 praying inter alia for
the following reliefs:-
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the WR in Case No. 381 dated
18.10.2004 G.R. No. 2711/04 under Section 120B,
420, 406, 465, 468, 471 I.P.C. P.S. Shakespeare
Sarani, Kolkata & Orders dated 15.10.2004 and
11.2.2005 passed by respondent no. 5.
ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest
the petitioners on the basis of the FIR dated
18.10.2004.
iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to
transfer the Case No. 381 under Section 120B, 420,
406, 465, 468, 471 IPC to State of U.P.
iv. issue any other writ, order or direction which the
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the present case.
v. Award costs to the petitioners from the
contesting respondents."
12. By reason of the impugned Judgment, a Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court allowed the said Writ Petition in part. While
declining to quash the First Information Report, the High Court opined:-
"Therefore, in totality of the matter, we are of the
view and accordingly direct that F.I.R. in case No.
381 dated 18th October, 2004 G.R. No. 2711/04 under
Section 120B, 420, 406, 465, 468, 471 I.P.S., P.S.
Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata be transmitted to the
appropriate Police Station of Uttar Pradesh through
the Secretary Home, State of West Bengal and the
Secretary, Home, State of Uttar Pradesh within a
period of fortnight from the date of communication of
this order. The concerned Investigating Officer will
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9
make all efforts to conclude the investigation
preferably within a period of three months from the
date of receipts of transmitted F.I.R., The petitioners
will not be arrested in respect of the said crime
number till the submission of chargesheet/final report,
if any. The petitioners are directed to co-operate with
the Investigating Officer in all possible manner.
However, no order is passed in respect of quashing of
the first information report."
13. Appellant is, thus, before us.
14. Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant in support of this appeal urged:-
i) The High Court committed a manifest error in passing the impugned
judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration the effect and
purport of sub-section (4) of Section 181 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure which categorically provides that a Court within whose
local jurisdiction the property was to be accounted for by the accused
persons will also have jurisdiction to try the case which was
introduced pursuant to the recommendations of the Law Commission
in its 41st Report, but despite the same, the High Court wrongly relied
upon on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Re Jivandas
Savchand [A.I.R. 1930 Bom. 490], which was rendered prior thereto.
(ii) The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate having exercised its judicial power
not only by issuing a direction in terms of sub-section (3) of Section
156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but also issuing a non-bailable
warrant of arrest, the Allahabad High Court had no territorial
jurisdiction to interfere therewith, as the said Court was not under its
supervisory jurisdiction. Strong reliance in this behalf has been
placed on Surya Dev Rai v Ram Chander Rai and Others [(2003) 6
SCC 675 and Mosaraf Hossain Khan v Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. and
Others [(2006) 3 SCC 618].
(iii) Only because a part of cause of action has arisen within the State of
Uttar Pradesh, the same by itself would not entitle the respondents to
pray for transfer of investigation from one State to the other
(iv) The High Court had no jurisdiction to transfer the investigation of a
criminal case from one statutory authority to another in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or
otherwise.
(v) Respondents having made false representations at Calcutta, a part of
the offence must be held to have been committed within the
jurisdiction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. As the
respondents were to account for of the amount received by them in
Calcutta, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had jurisdiction in the
matter to entertain a complaint petition under Section 156(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
15. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
accused/respondents, on the other hand, submitted:
(i) Representations made by the accused person, if any, for the
purpose of entering into an arrangement do not indicate that the
same were fraudulent one or were made from the very beginning
so as to attract the provisions of Section 420 of the Indian Penal
Code.
(ii) The complaint petition does not disclose as to which part of the
cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court of Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate and taking into consideration the totality
of circumstances, the said Court had no jurisdiction to direct
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9
investigation by the Police in terms of Section 156(3) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
(iii) Assuming that sub-section (4) of Section 181 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is attracted in the instant case, the principal
ingredient therefor being "required to be" which would mean that
such requirement must arise either by law or contract and in
absence of any averment made in the complaint petition in that
behalf, the same cannot be taken recourse to.
(iv) In any event as the major part of the cause of action arose within
the territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court, it could
direct transfer of investigation from one investigating agency to
another.
(v) Direction to lodge a First Information Report being not a judicial
order as the said power has been exercised at the pre-investigation
stage and having regard to the provisions contained in sub-section
(1) of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
determination of the jurisdiction of the two courts must be held to
be referable to Section 177 and 181 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
(vi) In any event as the complaint petition was filed only to harass the
respondents, this Court should not exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and/or
issue requisite direction itself even if be held that the High Court of
Allahabad had no jurisdiction in this behalf.
16. Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
State of Uttar Pradesh supported Mr. Dwivedi. Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal supported
Mr. Sunil Kumar.
17. Appellant herein did not file any complaint petition within the
meaning of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It filed an
application in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 156 thereof.
18. Sub-section (1) of Section 156 empowers the in-charge of a Police
Station to investigate any cognizable offence which Court having
jurisdiction over the local area within its limit or to try under the provisions
of Chapter XIII, the power of the Magistrate to order such an investigation is
vested in him who can take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
19. Chapter XIII provides for jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in
inquiries and trials. Section 177 provides that every offence shall ordinarily
be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed. Section 178 provides for place of inquiry or trial. It provides:
(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) when 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, that
it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over
any of such local areas.
20. Section 181 provides for place of trial in case of certain offences.
Sub-section (4) of Section 181 was introduced in the Code of Criminal
Procedure in 1973 as there existed conflict in the decisions of various High
Courts as regards commission of offence of criminal misappropriation and
criminal breach of trust and with that end in view, it was provided that such
an offence may be inquired into or tried by the Court within whose
jurisdiction the accused was bound by law or by contract to render accounts
or return the entrusted property, but failed to discharge that obligation.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9
21. The provisions referred to hereinbefore clearly suggest that even if a
part of cause of action has arisen, the police station concerned situate within
the jurisdiction of the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance under
Section 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure will have the jurisdiction
to make investigation.
22. The necessary ingredients for proving a criminal offence must exist in
a complaint petition. Such ingredients of offence must be referable to the
places where the cause of action in regard to commission of offence has
arisen. A cause of action as understood in its ordinary parlance may be
relevant for exercise of jurisdiction under Clause (2) of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India but its definition stricto sensu may not be applicable
for the purpose of bringing home a charge of criminal offence. The
application filed by the appellant under Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure disclosed commission of a large number of offences.
The fact that major part of the offences took place outside the jurisdiction of
the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta is not in dispute. But, even if a
part of the offence committed by the respondents related to the appellant-
Company was committed within the jurisdiction of the said Court, the High
Court of Allahabad should not have interfered in the matter. Respondents
themselves have referred to the Minutes of Meeting held on 18.05.2000
between the representatives of the appellant and Mr. Hanuman Prasad Ojha
at the registered office of the appellant wherein inter alia it was agreed:
"After reconciliation of the purchase and dispatch of
the above mentioned 10 rakes and also dispatch of
1211 MT by road and considering dispatch and
transaction till date in respect of payment, short
receipt of bags and also quality claim it has been
agreed by Mr. Hanuman Prasad Ojha and the
representative of PKS Ltd. that the A/c. is finally
treated as settled and closed and there will be no
claim on either side on payment of Rs. 17,25,398.15
by M/s PKS Ltd. for which the D/Ds are to be issued
in favour of Hanuman Prasad Ojha, payable at
Kanpur.
Further, Mr. Hanuman Prasad Ojha has confirmed
being taken all legal formalities in respect of
purchase and dispatch of the above mentioned 10
rakes and 1211 MT by road for export to
Bangladesh with the Govt. of U.P. and further
confirmed that if anything has not yet been complied
with, the same will be done by him as may be
necessary by the Govt. of U.P. and in case of any
deficiency he will be solely responsible for the
same."
23. Yet again in respect of another account, it was agreed:
"After reconciliation of the purchase and dispatch
till 10.05.2000 of the above quantity in respect of
payment, it has been agreed by Mr. Hanuman Prasad
Ojha and the representative of PKS Ltd. that the A/c.
is finally treated as settled and closed and there will
be no claim on either side on payment of Rs.
40,73,860.24 by M/s. PKS Ltd. for which the D/Ds
are to be issued in the following manner.
Shree Shyamji Udyog \026 Rs. 32,00,000/- payable at
Golagokarnath
Shree Shyamji Rice will \026 Rs. 5,24,861.94 \026 do-
-do-
Hanuman Prasad Ojha \026 Rs. 3,48,998.30 payable at
Kanpur. "
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9
24. If there had been a fraudulent misrepresentation by some of the
respondents at Calcutta and a conspiracy was hatched to commit offences of
cheating or misappropriation, indisputably a part of cause of action arose
within the jurisdiction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
25. The complainant has alleged that the respondents have committed
offences under Section 120B, 420, 406, 465, 468, 471, 478 and 481 of the
Indian Penal Code.
26. Although referred to in the complaint petition, but as no investigation
was sought to be prayed for in respect of the assault on Subodh Singh at
Kanpur Railway Station, it may not be necessary for us to address
thereupon.
27. Respondents were appointed as their agents by the appellants. There,
thus, existed a relationship of principal and agent. What were the terms and
conditions of the contract of agency and how criminal misconducts have
been committed while purporting to perform their part of the terms of the
said contract of agency, would be a matter of detailed investigation.
28. Fraudulent representation being one of the essential ingredients in
respect of commission of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal
Code, a place where such fraudulent misrepresentation has been made
would, thus, give rise to a cause of action for prosecuting the accused.
Similarly, having regard to the ingredients of an offence under Section 406
where the entrustments were made as also the situs where the offence was
completed in the sense that the amount entrusted had not been accounted for
by the agent to the principal will also have a nexus so as to enable to the
Court concerned to exercise its jurisdiction of taking cognizance.
Furthermore, whether the offence forgery of some documents committed or
some other criminal misconducts are said to have been committed in
furtherance of the commission of the principal offence of cheating and
misappropriation wherefor the respondents are said to have entered into a
criminal conspiracy; are required to be investigated. The Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, thus, had jurisdiction in the matter in terms of Section 178 read
with Section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
29. The High Court has placed strong reliance upon a decision of this
Court in Navinchandra N. Majithia v State of Maharashtra and Others
[(2000) 7 SCC 640], wherein this Court held, while considering a contention
that the High Court of Bombay was not correct in not entertaining the
application for quashing of a complaint petition filed by the complainant in
Shillong, went into the merit of the matter and instead of remitting the
matter back to the High Court directed:
"29. Considering the peculiar fact-situation of the
case we are of the view that setting aside the
impugned judgment and remitting the case to the
High Court for fresh disposal will cause further
delay in investigation of the matter and may create
other complications. Instead, it will be apt and
proper to direct that further investigation relating to
complaint filed by J.B. Holdings Ltd. should be
made by the Mumbai Police."
30. This Court arrived at the finding that the High Court should have
issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the State of Meghalaya to transfer the
investigation to the Mumbai Police taking note of the averments made in the
writ petition that the complaint petition filed at Shillong was malafide.
31. No such explicit prayer was made by the respondents in their writ
petition, although a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus,
directing the State of West Bengal to transfer Case No. 381 to the State of
U.P., had been made. The question of State of West Bengal’s having a legal
duty in that behalf did not arise. Only in the event an Investigating Officer,
having regard to the provisions contained in Section 154, 162, 177 and 178
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9
of the Code of Criminal Procedure had arrived at a finding that the alleged
crime was not committed within his territorial jurisdiction, could forward the
First Information Report to the Police having jurisdiction in the matter.
32. Stricto sensu therefore, the High Court should not have issued such a
direction. Assuming, however, that the High Court could mould the relief,
in our opinion, it was not a case where on the face of the allegations made in
the complaint petition, the same could be said to be malafide. A major part
of the cause of action might have arisen in the State of U.P., but the same by
itself would not mean that the Calcutta Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever.
33. We may notice that this Court in Mosaraf Hossain Khan v
Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. and Others [(2006) 3 SCC 658], distinguished
Navinchandra N. Majithia (supra), in the following terms:-
"33. In this case, the averments made in the writ
petition filed by the respondent herein even if
given face value and taken to be correct in their
entirety would not confer any jurisdiction upon the
Kerala High Court. The agreement was entered
into within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High
Court. The project for which the supply of stone
chips and transportation was being carried out was
also within the State of West Bengal. Payments
were obviously required to be made within the
jurisdiction of the said Court where either the
contract had been entered into or where payment
was to be made.
34. The appellant did not deny or dispute any of
the averments made in the complaint petition. In
the writ petition it merely wanted some time to
make the payment. It is now well known that the
object of the provision of Section 138 of the Act is
that for proper and smooth functioning of business
transaction in particular, use of cheques as
negotiable instruments would primarily depend
upon the integrity and honesty of the parties. It
was noticed that cheques used to be issued as a
device inter alia for defrauding the creditors and
stalling the payments. It was also noticed in a
number of decisions of this Court that dishonour of
a cheque by the bank causes incalculable loss,
injury and inconvenience to the payee and the
entire credibility of the business transactions
within and outside the country suffers a serious
setback. It was also found that the remedy
available in a civil court is a long-drawn process
and an unscrupulous drawer normally takes
various pleas to defeat the genuine claim of the
payee.
[See Goa Plast (P) Ltd. v Chico Ursula D’Souza
and Monaben Ketanbhai Shah v State of Gujarat.
36. For the purpose of providing the
aforementioned ingredients of the offence under
Section 138 of the Act, the complainant appellant
was required to prove the facts constituting the
cause of action therefor none of which arose within
the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court. It is apt
to mention that in Prem Chand Vijay Kumar this
Court held that cause of action within the meaning
of Section 142(b) of the Act can arise only once."
34. It was furthermore held that ordinarily the High Court should not
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9
interfere with an order taking cognizance passed by a competent court
except in appropriate cases.
35. However, the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad has been complied with, as would appear from the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the State of West Bengal. It was necessary, with
a view to arrive at the bottom of the matter to conduct investigation into the
allegations contained in the complaint petition by a competent investigating
officer of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Some offences at various places
situated within the State of Uttar Pradesh had been committed. The High
Court had not issued any direction as to which Investigating Officer attached
to which Police Station of Uttar Pradesh will have jurisdiction in the matter.
36. The direction of the High Court, in that way is vague and indefinite.
Investigating Officer attached to one Police Station may feel handicapped in
carrying out the investigation within the entire State. In this case, it may be
necessary for the Investigating Officer to make investigation even in other
States including Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal etc. for the
aforementioned purpose.
37. We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice would be
subserved if this appeal is disposed of with the following directions.
(i) Further investigation shall be carried out by C.B.C.I.D. of the State
of Uttar Pradesh.
(ii) Accused/respondents shall surrender before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Allahabad and their applications for grant of bail, if
any, may be considered by the said court on its own merits.
(iii) The accused/respondent shall render all cooperation with the
Investigating Officer. They shall appear before the Investigating
Officer as and when directed, if released on bail.
(iv) Investigation shall be carried out inter alia on the premise that the
jurisdiction to make investigation shall be subject to the ultimate
decision of the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Calcutta as if investigations are being carried out by the C.B.C.I.D.
of the State of Uttar Pradesh in continuation of the investigation
made by the Officer-in-charge of the Shakespeare Sarani Police
Station. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Allahabad shall be
entitled to pass appropriate orders from time to time in this behalf.
(v) The Report on completion of the investigation shall be forwarded
to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta who shall determine
the question of his own jurisdiction at an appropriate stage.
(vi) This order, it is made clear, is being passed in exercise of our
extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India. All concerned authorities are directed to carry out these
directions.
38. For the views we have taken, it is not necessary for us to embark upon
the question as to whether directions issued by the Judicial Magistrate by an
Order passed under sub-section (3) of Section 156 is a judicial order or an
administrative order.
39. This appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned directions.