C.K.THAKKER - (1.)This reference is made by the Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj vide his letter dated Feb. 23, 1994 pursuant to an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge below application Exh. 22 filed by the accused.
(2.)It appears that a complaint was filed against three accused for offences punishable under Secs. 302, 364, 467, 468, 477, 420, 406, 201 read with Secs. 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short). After the investigation, Sessions case No. 19 of 1993 was registered, charge was framed and thereafter, an application Exh. 22 was filed by the accused contending that the charge as framed against them was for different offences alleged to have been committed by them at different times and different places which was illegal and would cause serious prejudice to them. It was also stated that some of the offences have not been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Session Court, Bhuj while some offences were triable by a Court of Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Gahdhidham and, therefore, Session Court, Bhuj should not try the case. Prosecution filed its reply Exh. 23 to application Exh. 22, contending that the charge had already been framed against the accused for offences punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC and Sessions Court, Bhuj has jurisdiction to try offences under Secs. 364, 302, 201 read with Sec. 120B as also Sec. 34 IPC as they are exclusively triable by a Court of Session and also because the offences committed by the accused were continuous in nature.
(3.)It is the case of the prosecution that one Narandas Tarachand was kidnapped by the accused with intent to kill him in order to snatch away his property. Initially, the deceased was kidnapped from Adipur situated in Kutch District, admittedly, within the jurisdiction of Sessions Court, Bhuj, at Kutch. The deceased was taken to village Bhatvad, Taluka Vav of Banaskantha District where he was killed. Bhatvad is, admittedly, within territorial jurisdiction of Banaskantha District. The question, therefore, before the Court was as to whether the offences should be tried by Sessions Court, Kutch or by Sessions Court, Banaskantha. After hearing the parties, Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the case should be tried by the Court of Session, Banaskantha. Since he had no jurisdiction to pass such order or to transter case to Sessions Court, Banaskantha, a reference under Sec. 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") is made to this Court.