The High Court held that since the applicant can point to the lack of territorial jurisdiction before the learned Magistrate, the present transfer application is not necessary to entertain.
Application withdrawn and dismissed as the applicant could have pointed out the Magistrate's lack of territorial jurisdiction directly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
appln-621-14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
rpa
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.621 OF 2014
Ajay Tej Bahadur Singh .. Applicant Vs. Sachin Anjanrao Jagtap & Anr. .. Respondents
Mr.Nandkumar B. Sawant, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs.M.R. Tidke, A.P.P. for Respondent – State.
CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
DATED : NOVEMBER 24, 2014.
P.C. :
Heard Mr.Sawant, the learned counsel for the applicant.
2 By this application, the transfer of a criminal case in respect of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in which the applicant is the accused, is prayed for, on the ground that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Chiplun, Ratnagiri, before whom the said case is pending, has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and try the offence. It is submitted that the cheque in question was drawn on the Axes Bank, Pimpalgaon Branch in Taluka Niphad, District – Nashik. It is
1/2
appln-621-14
submitted that according to the law declared by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.1 , the case is required to be tried by a Magistrate at Nashik.
3 If this is so, the applicant can point out to the learned Magistrate that he has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and try the offence in question. The Magistrate, in that case, would be competent to take action under Section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not necessary to entertain the present transfer application.
4 The application is allowed to be withdrawn and stands dismissed, as such.
(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)
1 2014(9) Scale, Page No.97.
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application to transfer a criminal case for lack of territorial jurisdiction needs to be entertained given the Supreme Court's position on jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.Referred¶12
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. 1
Ajay Tej Bahadur Singh
Sachin Anjanrao Jagtap
Abhay M Thipsay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
