JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J.
1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly with the recommendation that the order dated 3.4.1971 of the Assistant Sessions Judge be set aside and the order of the Judicial Magistrate Bareilly committing the accused to also stand his trial for the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. be quashed and the Assistant Sessions Judge be directed to try the accused merely for the offence of kidnapping punishable under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C.
2. The learned Sessions Judge evidently made the reference relying upon the decision of this Court in State v. Sri Lal 1971 Cri LJ 141 (All). The reference came up for hearing before Mohd. Hamid Hussain, J. who has rightly pointed out that law to the contrary has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Purushottam Das Dalmia v. State of West Bengal . He however felt that the Single Judge decision could not be disregarded or overruled by him. This is why this reference has come up before us for hearing.
3. The material facts of the case are that one Chhotey Mian is alleged to have kidnapped Km. Afsar Jahan a girl aged less than 18 years from the lawful custody of her parents at Bareilly and thereafter took her to Haldwani where he committed rape on her. The offence of kidnapping Ss alleged to have been committed at Bareilly on 26.7.1967 at about 12 noon, while the offence of rape in Haldwani on the night of the 26/27th July, 1967. The Magistrate of Bareilly held an Inquiry and committed Chhotey Mian to sessions to stand has trial of both the offences of kidnapping and rape even though the latter offence was committed at Haldwani.
4. When the sessions trial came up for hearing before the Assistant Sessions Judge the accused moved an application for quashing the commitment in respect of the offence of tape. The application was dismissed and then the accused moved the Sessions Judge who has made the present reference, as mentioned above on the basis of the Single Judge decision in 1971 Cri LJ 141 (All). Tre Supreme Court decision in AIR 1961 SC 1589 was evidently not brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge. As the law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on all the courts within the territory of India It is not necessary for us to make detailed comments on the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The material observations made by the Supreme Court are contained in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the above report, which runs as below.:
(16) It is true that it is not stated in express terms either in Section 236 or Section 239 that their provisions would justify the joint trial of offences or of persons mentioned therein in a Court irrespective of the fact whether the offences to be tried were committed within the jurisdiction of that particular Court or not. But such in our opinion should be the interpretation of the provisions in these two sections. The sections do not expressly state that all such offences which can be charged and tried together or for which various persons can be charged and tried together must take place within the jurisdiction of the Court trying them. The provisions are in general terms. Sub-sections (1) to (3) of Section 235 provide for the offences being charged with and tried at one trial and therefore provide for the trial of those offences at one trial la any Court which has jurisdiction over any of the offences committed in the course of the same transaction. The illustrations to Section 235 also make no reference to the places where the offences were committed. In particular illustration (c) can apply even when the offences referred to therein were committed at places within the territorial jurisdiction of different Courts. Similarly, Section 239 provides for the various persons being charged and tried together for the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction or accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction. Such offences or persons would not be tried together if some of the offences are committed by some of them outside the jurisdiction of the Court which can try the other offences, if the contention for the appellant be accepted and that would amount to providing, by construction, an exception far these sections.
(17) As Sections 235 and 239 of the Code are enabling sections the Legislature, rightly did not use the expression which would have made it incumbent on the Court to try a person of the various offences at one trial or to try various persons for the different offences committed in the course of the same transaction together. The omission to make such peremtory provision does not necessarily indicate the intention of the legislature that the Court having Jurisdiction to try certain offences cannot try an offence committed in the course of the same transaction, but beyond its jurisdiction.
5. We are thus of opinion that the decision in 1971 Cri LJ 141 (All) does not lay down the correct law. We are further of opinion that the court can hold an inquiry or trial in respect of an offence committed outside its jurisdiction if the offences were committed in the course of the same transaction as was in the present case.
6. The reference is hereby rejected. The Sessions Judge be informed accordingly. The records shall be sent back immediately.