The order passed by the High Court was an ex parte order.
This special leave petition is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital 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 has held that numberSessions Court of the State of Uttaranchal has the territorial jurisdiction to companyduct 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.
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.
The dead bodies were seized and panchnama was prepared at Unnao, U.P. Then an application was filed that the Nainital Court has numberjurisdiction to frame the charges as the offence has been companymitted in the State of Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, the State of Uttaranchal has numberterritorial jurisdiction.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and have perused the record.
Aggrieved against that order present special leave petition.
Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the special leave 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.
However, the Court left the question of territorial jurisdiction open to be decided by the appropriate forum.
Aggrieved against the order of the High Court, the accused petitioner has approached this Court by way of special leave petition.
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 gang of Prakash Pandeya alias P.P. and was in touch with them on telephone and cell phone.
The matter was taken up to this Court and this Court, by order dated 24.4.2006, declined to transfer the trial from Nainital to Lucknow.
When the matter was taken up before this Court, the grievance was that the accused Petitioner was number likely to get a fair trial because numbere of the members of the Bar were going to take up the case of the accused Petitioner.
The matter was taken up before the High Court and the High Court without examining the matter in that light, set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and dismissed the application on the basis of the order passed by this Court on 24.4.2006.
When the case was companymitted to the Additional Sessions Judge, again a question was raised of the territorial jurisdiction and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing both the parties, recorded a finding that mere receiving of telephone calls at Nainital from Lucknow demanding a ransom cannot be said that the offence was companymitted in Nainital and therefore the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 29.6.2006 held that in view of the provisions of Section 181 2 of the Code or Criminal Procedure, the case should be tried in the Court located either in District Unnao or District Lucknow, in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
But an affidavit was filed by the Bar Association, Nainital, before this Court that they will provide sufficient legal assistance to the accused and on that basis the matter was disposed of.
ORDER Heard Learned companynsel for the parties.
Shri Ravi Varshney, Advocate, had gone from Dehradoon to Lucknow by train along with one companytractor 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 ransom money.
