VISHWANATH GUPTA versus STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 332 · Decided: 21-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VISHW ANA TH GUPTA 
v. 
STATEOFUTfARANCHAL 
MARCH 21, 2007 
B 
[A.K. MA THUR AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
ss. 2(j) and 178-0.ffence of kidnapping for ransom uls 364-A, IPC-
C. Local jurisdiction-Place of trial-Victim kidnapped at Lucknow-Demand 
for ransom received at Haldwani, Nainital-Dead body of victim found at 
· Unnao (UP}-FIR registered and case investigated at Haldwani, Nainital-
Held, trial could be conducted in any of local jurisdiction of Haldwani, 
Nainital in State of Uttaranchal, Lucknow or Unnao in State of U.P.-But 
D since case was registered at Police Station, Haldwani, and investigation 
started at Haldwani, therefore, local jurisdiction to try the offence shall be 
at Haldwani/Nainital-Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital will have 
jurisdiction to try the offence-Penal Code, 1860-s.364-A. 
E 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
s.364-A-lngredients of-Discussed. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Petition for Special Leave to 
Appeal (Cr!.) No. 4516 of2006. 
F 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 17.7.2006 of the High Court 
of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Misc. Case No. 938 of 2006. 
Shambhu Prasad Singh, Prem Sunder Jha and Manjula Gupta for the 
Petitioner. 
G 
Siddhartha Dave, Javed Mahud Rao, Shahid Ali Rao, Musharraf 
H 
Chawdhry and Rachana Srivastava for the Respondent. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
332 
y 
\ 
VISHW ANA TH GUPTA v. ST A TE OF UTT ARANCHAL 
333 
... 
1. Heard Learned counsel for the parties. 
A 
2. This special leave petition is directed against the order passed by the 
High Court of Uttaranchal at N ainital dated 17. 7 .2006 whereby the High Court 
has set aside the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Third Fast 
Track Court, Nainital dated 29.6.2006 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge 
l, 
has held that no Sessions Court of the State of Uttaranchal has the territorial B 
I 
jurisdiction to conduct the trial of the case and only the Sessions Court of 
~ 
Lucknow or Unnao District in the State of Uttar Pradesh has the jurisdiction 
to try this offence. Aggrieved against the order of the High Court, the 
accused petitioner has approached this Court by way of special leave petition. 
3. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the special leave c 
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 gan.g of D 
· 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 E 
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 . F 
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 arid, 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, 
G 
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 ":as 
~ 
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 H 
334 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 4 S.C.R. 
A this Court that they will provide sufficient l

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