SHRI RAJENDRA RAMCHANDRA KAVALEKAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 480 · Decided: 23-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE, H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 480 
A 
SHRI RAJENDRA RAMCHANDRA KAVALEKAR 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.142 of 2009) 
B 
JANUARY 23, 2009 
[TARUN CHATIERJEE AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.) 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
c 
s. 177 - Territorial jurisdiction -Accused stated to have 
procured forged degree from Ranchi University in collusion 
and connivance with University officials and secured a job on 
its basis - Criminal case registered against accused for 
offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, in Ranchi, 
D Jharkhand - Writ petition of accused before High Court of 
Bombay seeking to quash criminal case in Ranchi 
contending that the Institute which issued the degree was 
based in State of Maharashtra and therefore, Court at Ranchi 
had no jurisdiction - Rejected by High Court - HELD: 
E Territorial jurisdiction of a court with regard to criminal offence 
would be decided on the basis of place of occurrence of 
incident and not on the basis of where the complaint was filed 
and the mere fact that FIR was registered in a particular State 
is not sole criterion to decide that no cause of action has 
f 
F arisen even partly within territorial limits of jurisdiction of 
another court - Venue of enquiry or trial is primarily to be 
determined by averments contained in the complaint or 
charge-sheet - In the complaint filed by CBI, Ranchi, it is 
specifically alleged that the accused had entered into criminal 
G 
conspiracy with the officials of Ranchi University and had 
obtained fake degree certificates - A court trying an accused 
for an offence of conspiracy is competent to try him for all 
r 
offences committed in pursuance of conspiracy irrespective 
of the fact that any or all other offences were not committed 
within its territorial jurisdiction - A bare perusal of the 
H 
480 
RAJENDRA RAMCHANDRA KAVALEKAR v. STATE OF 
481 
MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
complaint shows that the cause of action arose within the A 
jurisdiction of Special Judge (CBI), Ranchi, the investigation 
is completed in Ranchi, all the records and documents 
pertaining to complaint and the charge sheet are before the 
Special Judge (CBI), Ranchi, and therefore, the High Court 
of Bombay was perfectly justified in declining to entertain the 
B 
writ petition filed by the petitioner. 
Banwarilal Jhunjhunwala v. Union of India AIR 1963 SC 
1620 and Asit Bhattacharjee v. Hanuman Prasad Ojha and 
Ors. (2007) 5 sec 786, relied on. 
Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 
(2007) 7 sec 640, referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
c2001) 1 sec 640 
referred to 
para 7 
c2001) s sec 786 
relied on 
para 13 
AIR 1963 SC 1620 
relied on 
para 16 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 142 of 2009. 
c 
D 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.2006 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 
F 
1375 of 2006. 
WITH 
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 234 of 2006. 
K.T.S. Tulsi, H.Pillai, Nayna, Vijay Thakur and Senthil 
Jagadeesan for the Appellant. 
B. Datta, A.S.G., P.K. Dey, B.K. Prasad, P. 
Parmeswaran, Aprajita Singh, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure and 
G 
482 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009) 1 s. c. R. 
A Anjani Kumar Mishra for the Respondents. 
-i. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
ORDER 
B S.L.P(Crl.)No. 3589 of 2006 
(1) Leave is granted. 
+ 
(2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order 
c passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal 
Writ Petition No. 1375 of 2006 dated July 5, 2006. By the 
. 
' 
impugned order, the High Court has rejected the writ petition, 
however, has directed the respondent therein, not to arrest the 
appellant for a period of six weeks, in R.C. Case No. 1 (A).2004 
D registered under Sections 120(b), 420, 467, 468 and 471 of 
the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 
~ 
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending on 
the file of the Special Judge (C.B.I.), Ranchi, Jharkhand, to 
facilitate the appellant to move the appropriate court for 
E appropriate relief. It may be useful to extract the reasoning, 
conclusion and the directions issued by the court to appreciate 
the issues canvassed by the appellant. It is as under: 
"From the submissions made by the petitioner's advocate, 
it is clear that the Jharkhand Court seized of the matter. It 
• 
F 
is the C.B.I. Court, all papers and documents pertaining 
to the case mentioned above are in the custody and 
possession of the said court and, there

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.