Supreme Court of India
SHRI RAJENDRA RAMCHANDRA KAVALEKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 57
- Decided
- 23 January 2009
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
A court trying a conspiracy offence has jurisdiction to try all offences committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, and territorial jurisdiction is determined by the place of occurrence of the offence; therefore, the Special Judge (CBI), Ranchi, had jurisdiction and the High Court was correct in rejecting the writ petition.
Summary
The appellant, Rajendra Ramchandra Kavalekar, was accused of obtaining a forged degree from Ranchi University in collusion with university officials and using it to secure employment with ITDC. The CBI filed a case in Ranchi, Jharkhand, under sections 120(b), 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Special Judge (CBI) in Ranchi by filing a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, arguing that the institute issuing the degree was based in Maharashtra and therefore the case should be tried there. The High Court rejected the petition, and the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that territorial jurisdiction for a criminal offence is determined by the place where the offence occurred, and a court trying a conspiracy can try all offences committed in furtherance of that conspiracy regardless of where each offence took place. Since the cause of action arose in Ranchi and the investigation and charge‑sheet were lodged there, the Special Judge (CBI) Ranchi had jurisdiction, and the High Court was correct in refusing to entertain the writ petition. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The appropriate territorial jurisdiction for the criminal offences alleged against the appellant, particularly in a conspiracy case.
- Whether the High Court of Bombay was justified in rejecting the writ petition seeking quash of the case pending before the Special Judge (CBI), Ranchi.
- Interpretation of Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with respect to jurisdiction over offences committed as part of a conspiracy.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 177
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120(b), s. 420, s. 467, s. 468, s. 471
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(d), s. 13(2)
Subjects
Territorial jurisdictionCriminal conspiracySection 177 CrPCPrevention of Corruption ActForged degreeWrit petitionCBI investigation
Judgment
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 480
A SHRI RAJENDRA RAMCHANDRA KAVALEKAR
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No.142 of 2009)
JANUARY 23, 2009
B
[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
arisen even partly within territorial limits of jurisdiction of
F
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
conspiracy with the officials of Ranchi University and had
G 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.
c
Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(2007) 7 sec 640, referred to.
Case Law Reference:
D
c2001) 1 sec 640 referred to para 7
c2001) s sec 786 relied on para 13
AIR 1963 SC 1620 relied on para 16
E
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 142 of 2009.
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.
G
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
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
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal
c 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
registered under Sections 120(b), 420, 467, 468 and 471 of
D ~
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
appropriate relief. It may be useful to extract the reasoning,
E 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, therefore, it will not be
proper for the court to entertain this petition for quashing
the proceedings."
G
(3) In the Criminal Writ Petition filed before the High Court ,,..
of Judicature at Bombay, the appellant apart from others, had
asserted that he is the accused No. 1 in the case registered
by C.B.I., SPE, Ranchi in the State of Jharkhand for the
offences under Sections 120(b), 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and
H
RAJENDRA RAMCHANDRA KAVALEKAR v. STATE OF 483
MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of A
Corruption Act, 1988. The State of Maharashtra which is
arrayed as Respondent No. 1 in the petition, through RCF
Police Station, Kurla, has registered a case bearing Crime No.
250 of 1999 dated 14th October, 1999 under Sections 420,
461, 465, 468, 471, 473 476 and 120(b) of IPC and tried as B
CC No. 855/P/2000 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla, Mumbai, wherein the role of
Kanhayalal Sharma a,nd his son Prakash Kanhayalal Sharma
is being investigated for having issued bogus and false Degree
certificates to large number of students purportedly from Ranchi c
and Pune Universities. It is also stated that with the help of the
degree certificate and the provisional certificate issued by the
Ranchi University, he had joined India Tourism Development
Corporation (ITDC for short) as Cashier-cum-Sales Assistant
by producing the aforesaid certificate issued for the academic 0
year 1993-94 and it is also stated that until he was issued with
suspension order by the employer viz. ITDC, he was not aware,
that, the certificate issued by the Ranchi University was bogus/
fake/fabricated. The appellamt has further stated that he has
never been to the State of Jharkhand or to Ranchi for the
purpose of appearing in the examination for the academic year E
1993-94. It is further asserted that Kanhayalal Sharma who is
the main accused in the case registered by RCF Police Station,
Kurla, had opened an educational institution known as
'Marudhar Mahavidyalaya' operated both from Pune and
Mumbai cities and the said institution has issued forged/bogus/ F
false certificates of the Ranchi University. It has also stated that
he had applied for anticipatory bail before the Special Judge,
CBI, Ranchi and by an order dated 22nd November, 2005, the
learned Judge had rejected the anticipatory bail on the ground
that appellant was not one of those appellants who had G
approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the Writ
Petition No. 71 of 2001 and connected matters. It is further
stated, that, he had approached the High Court of Jharkhand
for grant of anticipatory bail and it was also rejected. It is further
assertion of the appellant that there is no reason for CBI, SPE, H
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A Ranchi to launch a case against the appellant in the year 2004,
of a case where inquiry had already been initiated by RCF
Police Station for the very same offence and the matter is
already pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Kurla, Mumbai. Lastly, it is stated that the CBI, SPE,
B Ranchi has no jurisdiction to register a case against the
appellant, since the entire cause of action had arisen in the
State of Maharashtra and not in Ranchi and by registering a t
case at Ranchi by the CBI, SPE, Ranchi, have abused the
process of law and it has no locus standi to file a complaint
c against the appellant in respect of the offences mentioned in
the charge sheet in which the appellant is a victim by himself.
Accordingly, he has sought for the following reliefs :
(1) To issue a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari to
quash registration of the case R.C. Case No. 1(A)/
D 2004 registered under Sections 120(b), 420, 467,
468, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with
Section 13( 1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 pending before the Special Judge (CBI),
Ranchi, Jharkhand State,.
E
(2) Without prejudice to the aforesaid relief, if this
Hon'ble Court decline to quash the registration of
the case R.C. Case No. 1(A)/2004 registered under
Sections 120(b), 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and
..
F Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1 )(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the same
order to be sent to RCF Police Station for
investigation, inquiry and trial before the Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla,
Mumbai in accordance with law.
G
(4) As we have already stated, the High Court of Judicature
at Bombay has rejected the writ petition with certain
observations and directions.
H (5) Questioning the correctness or otherwise of the final
RAJENDRA RAMCHANDRA KAVALEKAR v. STATE OF 485
MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at A
Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1375 of 2006, the
appellant is before us in this appeal.
(6) We have heard Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior
Counsel, for the appellant and Shri Datta, learned senior B
counsel for the respondents.
(7) Shri Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the
+ High Court of Judicature at Bombay was not right in rejecting
the Criminal Writ Petition filed by the appellant solely on the
ground that the entire matter is pending before the Special c
Judge (CBI) at Ranchi, and, therefore, it would not be proper
for the court to entertain the petition for quashing the
proceedings in the case R.C. Case No. 1(A)/2004. It is further
contended that since the part of the cause of action has arisen
in the State of Maharashtra, the High Court of Judicature at D
.. Bombay has the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and
grant relief sought for by the appellant. In aid of his submission,
learned senior counsel would invite our attention to the
observations made by this Court in the case of Navinchandra
N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2007) 7 SCC 640. E
(8) Shri Datta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents would contend, that, the appellant in collusion and
connivance with the officials of the Ranchi University had
'r
obtained forged degree certificate and by producing that F
certificate had secured a job in ITDC as Cashier-cum- Sales-
Assistant and when the Vigilance Department of ITDC tried to
verify those documents from Ranchi University, the appellant
with the help of the Dispatching Clerk of the office of the
Controller of Examination, Ranchi University had destroyed the
r G
letter dated 26.2.2000 issued by the Controller of
.... Examinations, Ranchi University, informing the ITDC that the
mark sheet, the Provisional Certificate and the Degree
Certificate of th9 appellant are false and are not issued by the
University and instead a bogus letter bearing No. EX/1715
H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A dated 17. 7 .2000 was sent to ITDC under the name of
-;I
Controller of Examination, Ranchi University wherein it had been
mentioned that the appellant had appeared in B.A. Degree ~
Examination of Ranchi University in the year 1993-94 and his
marksheet, provisional certificate and the degree certificate
B were declared as genuine and therefore, the entire cause of
,j
action has arisen in the District of Ranchi, State of Jharkhand.
The learned counsel further submitted that the investigation in
R.C. Case No. 1(A)/2004 is completed by the CBI, Ranchi and +
the chargesheet against the appellant and against Sri P.C. Ram,
c Despatch Clerk of Ranchi University has been filed before the
Special Judge (CBI), Ranchi and the same is pending
~
consideration. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay was right in declining
to entertain the Criminal Writ Petition filed by the appellant.
D (9) Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, in .
our view, the issue that requires our consideration is, whether
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay was right in passing
the impugned order rejecting the Criminal Writ Petition filed by
the appellant on the ground, that, the Special Judge (CBI),
E Ranchi has heard case R.C. Case No. 1(A)/2004 and all the
documents pertaining to the case are in the custody and
possession of the Special Judge (CBI), Ranchi.
(10) Before we advert to the issue raised for our ..
F consideration and consequent decision, let us first notice the
decision on which reliance is placed by learned senior counsel
Shri Tulsi in support of his submission.
(11) The facts in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of
Maharashtra's, case was that the FIR was filed in Shillong,
G Meghalaya against the appellant to reverse the transaction
relating to transfer of company shares which had entirely taken ,, !
place at Maharashtra. Therefore, the appellant had filed a writ
petition before the Mumbai High Court for quashing of FIR filed
at Shillong and alternatively a prayer was made for the issue
H
RAJENDRA RAMCHANDRA KAVALEKAR v. STATE OF 487
MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
lt
of Writ of Mandamus against the State of Meghalaya for A
transfer of the investigation to the Mumbai Police. The High
Court had dismissed the petition. In appeal, this Court observed
that the High Court has failed in not considering the alternative
prayer, since the part of the cause of action had arisen with the
territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. B
(12) It is also relevant to state, that, in Navinchandra N.
+ Majithia's case, the Court at paragraph 22 of the judgment has
observed:
"So far as the question of territorial jurisdiction with c
reference to a criminal offence is concerned the main factor
to be considered is the place where the alleged offence
was committed."
(13) The territorial jurisdiction of a court with regard to D
criminal offence would be decided on the basis of place of
occurrence of the 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 the sole criterion to decide that no
cause of action has arisen even partly within the territorial limits E
of jurisdiction of another court. The venue of enquiry or trial is
primarily to be determined by the averments contained in the
complaint or charge sheet. Section 177 of Criminal Procedure
Code provides that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired
'>'
into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was
F
committed. Reference can be made to the observations made
by this court in Asif Bhattacharjee v. Hanuman Prasad Ojha
and Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 786. This court at paragraph 23 has
stated as under:
"The necessary ingredients for proving a criminal G
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
H
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 1 S.C.R.
A may be relevant for exercise of jurisdiction under clause -j(
(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 petitioner under Section 156(3) of
B the Code of Criminal Procedure disclosed commission of
a large number of offences. The fact that major part of the
offence 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
c related to the petitioner Company was committed within
the jurisdiction of the said court, the High Court of Allahabad
should not have interfered in the matter.
(14) This court has further observed :
D (30) "The High Court has placed strong reliance upon a
decision of this Court in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State
of Maharashtra, (2007) 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
E 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: (SCC p. 651, para 29)
F '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
G 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 Mumbai Police.'
H
RAJENDRA RAMCHANDRA KAVALEKAR v. STATE OF 489
MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
·~ (31) This Court arrived at the finding that the High Court A
should have issued a writ of mandamus directing the State
of Meghalaya to transfer the investigation to Mumbai
Police taking note of the averments made in· the writ
petition that the complaint petition filed at Shillong was
ma/a fide. B
(32) 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. 1"he question of the State of West Bengal's
c
having a legal duty in that behalf did not arise. Only in the
event an investigating officer, having regard to the
provisions contained in Sections 154, 162.. 177 and 178
of the Code of Criminal Procedure had arrived at a finding
_, that the alleged crime was not committed within his D
territorial jurisdiction, could forward the first information
report to the police having jurisdiction in the matter.
(33) Stricto sensu, therefore, the High Court should not
have issued such a direction. Assuming, however, that the E
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 ma/a fide.
?- . 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 F
that the Calcutta Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever."
(15) In the instant case, the CBI has initiated the suo-moto
investigation against the appellant. In the First Information
Report filed before the Special Judge (CBI), Ranchi, it is stated
G
that during the course of investigation of R.C. Case No. 1(A)/
2000, which was registered pursuant to the orders of High
Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, a reliable source of information
had been received to the effect that Shri Rajendra Ramchandra
Kavalekar (appellant) had entered into a criminal conspiracy
H
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A with the other unknown persons including the officials of Ranchi
University during the academic year 1993-94 by obtaining the
false and forged mark sheets of Ranchi University, and, further,
on the strength of those false and fabricated documents
pertaining to his graduation degree, fraudulently and dishonestly
B obtained employment in India Tourism Development
Corporation as Cashier-cum-Sales Assistant. In the First
Information Report, it is also stated that the appellant in
collusion with the officials of India Tourism Development +
· Corporation Ltd., Mumbai, the University, had managed to
c suppress letter dated 26.2.2000 written by the Controller of
Examination, Ranchi pursuant to the queries made by the
Manager (Vigilance) of ITDC, for ascertaining whether the
provisional certificate and the degree certificate issued to the
appellant for the academic year 1993-94 is forged and fake,
0 and the,appellant with a collusion and connivance of the
officials of the University had got prepared a letter dated
26.2.2000, wherein it is stated that the marks sheets,
provisional certificate and the degree certificate produced by
the appellant at the time of securing the job in ITDC is correct
E and genuine and thereby has committed a criminal offence
under the provisions of Indian Penal Code.
(16) The case of the appellant before the High Court of
Mumbai, was that he was nowhere responsible for the issuance
of fake/forged degree certificates while securing job as
F Cashier-cum-Sales Assistant in ITDC. According to appellant,
it is the handiwork of Shri Kanhayalal Sharma, who was
managing the institution known as 'Marudhar Mahavidyalaya'
having its centres at Pune and Mumbai. Except this bald
assertion, he has not produced any material in support of that
G assertion. However, in the complaint filed by CBI, Ranchi, it is
specifically alleged that the appellant had entered into criminal
conspiracy with the officials of the 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
H offences committed in pursuance of conspiracy irrespective of
RAJENDRA RAMCHANDRA KAVALEKAR v. STATE OF 491
MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
., the fact that any or all the other offences were not committed A
within the territorial jurisdiction (See Banwari/al Jhunjhunwa/a
v. Union of India, 'AIR 1963 SC 1620).
(17) A bare perusal of the complaint filed would clearly go
to show that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of B
Special Judge (CBI), Ranchi, the investigation is completed in
Ranchi, all the records and the documents pertaining to
+ complaint and the charge sheet are before the Special Judge
(CBI), Ranchi, and therefore, in our considered view, the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay was perfectly justified in . C
declining to entertain the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner.
(18) In view of the above reasons, we reject the appeal. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties
to bear their own costs.
D
T.P. (Crl.)No. 234 of 2006
(19) In view of t~e orders passed in Criminal Appeal
No....... of 2009 arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No. 3589 of 2006, the
Transfer Petition does. not survive and no further order is E
required. The Transfer Petition is disposed of accordingly.
RP. Transfer Petition disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Territorial jurisdiction"Sign in to search