http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1534 of 2006

PETITIONER: Asit Bhattacharjee

RESPONDENT: M/s. Hanuman Prasad Ojha & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/05/2007

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & C.K. Thakker

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

S.B. Sinha, J.

        1.      Appellant herein was awarded contracts for exporting wheat, rice etc.  upon purchasing the same from Food Corporation of India as also from open  market, by the State Trading Corporation of India, Chennai and Kolkata as  also West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation Limited.   Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein allegedly approached him for appointment  as its agent to arrange and supply foodgrains i.e. wheat and rice of the Food  Corporation of India and send the same to different destinations in West  Bengal on commission basis.  Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said  agreement, Respondent No. 1 under the direction of Respondent No. 2 used  to make arrangement  of railway rakes at different railway stations in the  State of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttaranchal, Madhya Pradesh and  Haryana for export of rice and wheat from Food Corporation of India to  Bangladesh for and on behalf of the appellant.  Allegedly, in course of  rendition such services, respondents committed various acts of breach of  trust, cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy. One of their employees was  also assaulted.  A complaint petition was filed by the Appellant Company  before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata purported to be under  Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on or about  15.10.2004 inter alia alleging that a criminal conspiracy was entered into by  and between accused No. 2 with accused Nos. 3 to 12 with a view to cheat  the complainant Company and/or dishonestly  misappropriate a huge amount  of Rs. 1,62,32,837.00 by making forged and false documents, fraudulently  preparing its letter heads and seals and using the same, committed breach of  trust and withdrew the refund amount of Rs. 1,55,07,928.00           2.      It is not in dispute that the said purported acts were committed outside  the State of West Bengal and principally in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

3.      The bankers of the appellant company issued a draft of Rs.  1,63,536.00 in favour of District Manager, Food Corporation of India,  Sitapur which was also allegedly misappropriated by the concerned  respondents.

4.      One of the indent receipts out of the 30 indents amounting to                    Rs. 4,50,000.00 was lost by an employee of the appellant while travelling  and the accused No. 6 representing accused Nos. 1 and 2 withdrew the  amount in question by using forged indemnity bond and letter head of the  Company and, thus, a sum of Rs. 4,50,000.00 was misappropriated by the  accused persons.  The said offence was also allegedly committed at  Iradatgunj in the State of U.P. On behalf of the appellant, accused No. 2  allegedly deposited indent money in respect of 40 indents  at Hardoi, out of  which also some amount was misappropriated by the accused persons.   Hardoi is also in the State of Uttar Pradesh.  Demand draft issued by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

bankers of the appellant viz. Union Bank of India and Punjab National Bank  in favour of the District Manager, Food Corporation of India had also  allegedly been misappropriated.

5.      Various other alleged criminal misconducts on the part of the accused  persons were said to have been committed in the State of Uttar Pradesh.   

6.      We may at this juncture notice some of the allegations made in the  said complaint petition.   "8.     According to Railway procedure, for  allotment of railway rake, the party concerned shall  have to pay Rs. 15,000.00 as indent money for  registration of rake, for which Railway issue Money  Receipt.   Allotment of rake is made accordingly  after the announcement of quota from the Railway  Headquarters.  The indentor is free to withdraw the  indent money any time after ten days from the date  of indenting, without any liability.  Accordingly,  Accused No. 2 collected total Rs. 4,91,39,748.00 out  of which Rs. 1,55,07,928.00 was paid by Demand  Draft favoring the concerned Railway authority and  balance amount of Rs. 3,36,31,820.00 paid to  Accused No. Hanuman Prasad Ojha.  All the  Demand Draft in favour of the Railway Authorities  were issued for your petitioner’s Company."

7.      Paragraph 16 of the complaint petition deals with assault and criminal  intimidation of an employee of the appellant viz. Subodh Singh, at Kanpur.    

8.      Paragraph 17 of the complaint petition reads as under:- "17.    It appears that under the leadership of  Accused No. 2 all the Accused Persons committed  serious crimes viz. preparing forged documents by  printing Letter Pad and forging the Seal of your  petitioner’s company and forged authorization  letters and collected refund amount from the  Railway to the tune of Rs. 1,55,07,928.00 from the  Railway Authorities of different Railway Station  and fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated  Rs. 1,63,536.00 for which Demand Draft was  handed over to Accused No. 2 to deposit to the  District Manager, Food Corporation of India,  Sitapur for cost of the materials exported by your  petitioner’s company on behalf of the State Trading  Corporation Ltd., Chennai.  But the Accused No. 2  dishonestly deposited the said draft in the account of  Nafed India Ltd. with Food Corporation of India and  also the Accused Persons fraudulently and  dishonestly utilized indent money of your  petitioner’s company amounting to Rs. 3,57,810.00  for the payment of the railway freight of AK  Industries and Lavi Industries. Accused persons  fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated the  amount of Rs. 22,03,563.00 of your petitioner’s  Company by depositing demand draft to District  Manager, Food Corporation of India, Jhansi in the  account of WBECSC Limited instead of depositing  in the account of The State Trading Corporation of  India Ltd., Chennai towards cost of material.   As  such all the Accused Persons have misappropriated  and/or cheated the complainant company for a sum  of Rs. 1,62,32,837.00."

9.      Appellant in the said complaint petition further stated;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

"18.   Thus the Accused Persons in collusion and  connivance with each other, committed forgery,  cheating, criminal breach of trust, dishonest  misappropriation etc. etc. and are liable to be  prosecuted under section 120B/420/406/465/467/  468/471 of the Indian Penal Code.

19.   That this Ld. Court has got jurisdiction to try  this case as the representation of accused No. 2 was  made within the jurisdiction of this Ld. Court and  the accused persons were to account for at this office  of the complainant’s company which is also within  the jurisdiction of this Ld. Court."

10.     The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate upon consideration of the  said complaint directed the Officer-in-Charge of Shakespeare Sarani Police  Station, Kolkata to make an investigation into the allegations contained  therein.  Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said direction, investigations  had been carried out. As the respondents did not appear before the Court,  warrants of arrest had also been issued by the Chief Metropolitan  Magistrate, Kolkata.

11.     Respondents herein filed a criminal writ petition before the High  Court of Judicature at Allahabad on or about 1.3.2005 praying inter alia for  the following reliefs:- "i.   Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of  certiorari quashing the WR in Case No. 381 dated  18.10.2004 G.R. No. 2711/04 under Section 120B,  420, 406, 465, 468, 471 I.P.C. P.S. Shakespeare  Sarani, Kolkata & Orders dated 15.10.2004 and  11.2.2005 passed by respondent no. 5.

ii.     issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of  mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest  the petitioners on the basis of the FIR dated  18.10.2004.

iii.    Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of  mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to  transfer the Case No. 381 under Section 120B, 420,  406, 465, 468, 471 IPC to State of U.P.

iv.     issue any other writ, order or direction which the  Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the  circumstances of the present case.

v.      Award costs to the petitioners from the  contesting respondents."

12.     By reason of the impugned Judgment, a Division Bench of the  Allahabad High Court allowed the said Writ Petition in part.   While  declining to quash the First Information Report, the High Court opined:- "Therefore, in totality of the matter, we are of the  view and accordingly direct that F.I.R. in case No.  381 dated 18th October, 2004 G.R. No. 2711/04 under  Section 120B, 420, 406, 465, 468, 471 I.P.S., P.S.  Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata be transmitted to the  appropriate Police Station of Uttar Pradesh through  the Secretary Home, State of West Bengal and the  Secretary, Home, State of Uttar Pradesh within a  period of fortnight from the date of communication of  this order.  The concerned Investigating Officer will

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

make all efforts to conclude the investigation  preferably within a period of three months from the  date of receipts of transmitted F.I.R., The petitioners  will not be arrested in respect of the said crime  number till the submission of chargesheet/final report,  if any.   The petitioners are directed to co-operate with  the Investigating Officer in all possible manner.    However, no order is passed in respect of quashing of  the first information report."

        13.     Appellant is, thus, before us.

14.     Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the  appellant in support of this appeal urged:- i)      The High Court committed a manifest error in passing the impugned  judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration the effect and  purport of sub-section (4) of Section 181 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure which categorically provides that a Court within whose  local jurisdiction the property was to be accounted for by the accused  persons will also have jurisdiction to try the case which was  introduced pursuant to the recommendations of the Law Commission  in its 41st Report,  but despite the same, the High Court wrongly relied  upon on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Re Jivandas  Savchand [A.I.R. 1930 Bom. 490], which was rendered prior thereto.

(ii)    The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate having exercised its judicial power  not only by issuing a direction in terms of sub-section (3) of Section  156  of the Code of Criminal Procedure but also issuing a non-bailable  warrant of arrest,  the Allahabad High Court had no territorial  jurisdiction to interfere therewith, as the said Court was not under its  supervisory jurisdiction.  Strong reliance in this behalf has been  placed on Surya Dev Rai v Ram Chander Rai and Others [(2003) 6  SCC 675 and Mosaraf Hossain Khan v Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. and  Others [(2006) 3 SCC 618].

(iii)   Only because a part of cause of action has arisen within the State of  Uttar Pradesh, the same by itself would not entitle the respondents to  pray for transfer of investigation from one State to the other  (iv)    The High Court had no jurisdiction to transfer the investigation of a  criminal case from one statutory authority to another in exercise of its  jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or  otherwise.  (v)    Respondents having made false representations at Calcutta, a part of  the offence must be held to have been committed within the  jurisdiction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.  As the  respondents were to account for of the amount received by them in  Calcutta, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had jurisdiction in the  matter to entertain a complaint petition under Section 156(3) of the  Code of Criminal Procedure.

15.     Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  accused/respondents, on the other hand, submitted:

(i)     Representations made by the accused person, if any, for the  purpose of entering into an arrangement do not indicate that the  same were fraudulent one or were made from the very beginning  so as to attract the provisions of Section 420 of the Indian Penal  Code.   (ii)    The complaint petition does not disclose as to which part of the  cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court of Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate and taking into consideration the totality  of circumstances, the said Court had no jurisdiction to direct

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

investigation by the Police in terms of Section 156(3) of the Code  of Criminal Procedure.  (iii)   Assuming that sub-section (4) of Section 181 of the Code of  Criminal Procedure is attracted in the instant case, the principal  ingredient therefor being "required to be" which would mean that  such requirement must arise either by law or contract and in  absence of any averment made in the complaint petition in that  behalf, the same cannot be taken recourse to. (iv)    In any event as the major part of the cause of action arose within  the territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court, it could  direct transfer of investigation from one investigating agency to  another.   (v)     Direction to lodge a First Information Report being not a judicial  order as the said power has been exercised at the pre-investigation  stage and having regard to the provisions contained in sub-section  (1) of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,  determination of the jurisdiction of the two courts must be held to  be referable to Section 177 and 181 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure.   (vi)    In any event as the complaint petition was filed only to harass the  respondents, this Court should not exercise its discretionary  jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and/or  issue requisite direction itself even if be held that the High Court of  Allahabad had no jurisdiction in this behalf.

16.     Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learned senior counsel  appearing on behalf of the  State of Uttar Pradesh supported Mr. Dwivedi.   Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee,  learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal supported  Mr. Sunil Kumar.

17.     Appellant herein did not file any complaint petition within the  meaning of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   It filed an  application in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 156 thereof.

18.     Sub-section (1) of Section 156 empowers the in-charge of a Police  Station to investigate any cognizable offence which Court having  jurisdiction over the local area within its limit or to try under the provisions  of Chapter XIII, the power of the Magistrate to order such an investigation is  vested in him who can take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of  the Code of Criminal Procedure.

19.     Chapter XIII provides for jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in  inquiries and trials.  Section 177 provides that every offence shall ordinarily  be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was  committed.   Section 178 provides for place of inquiry or trial.   It provides:

(a)     when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was  committed; or  (b)     where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly  in another; or  (c)     when an offence is a continuing one and continues to be committed  in more local areas than one; or  (d)     where it consists of several acts done in different local areas,  that  it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over  any of such local areas.

20.     Section 181 provides for place of trial in case of certain offences.   Sub-section (4) of Section 181 was introduced in the Code of Criminal  Procedure in 1973 as there existed conflict in the decisions of various High  Courts as regards commission of offence of criminal misappropriation and  criminal breach of trust and with that end in view, it was provided that such  an offence may be inquired into or tried by the Court within whose  jurisdiction the accused was bound by law or by contract to render accounts  or return the entrusted property, but failed to discharge that obligation.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

21.     The provisions referred to hereinbefore clearly suggest that even if a  part of cause of action has arisen, the police station concerned situate within  the jurisdiction of the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance under  Section 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure will have the jurisdiction  to make investigation.

22.     The necessary ingredients for proving a criminal 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 may be  relevant for exercise of jurisdiction under Clause (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 appellant under Section 156(3) of the Code of  Criminal Procedure disclosed commission of a large number of offences.   The fact that major part of the offences 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 related to the appellant- Company was committed within the jurisdiction of the said Court, the High  Court of Allahabad should not have interfered in the matter.  Respondents  themselves have referred to the Minutes of Meeting held on 18.05.2000  between the representatives of the appellant and Mr. Hanuman Prasad Ojha  at the registered office of the appellant wherein inter alia it was agreed: "After reconciliation of the purchase and dispatch of  the above mentioned 10 rakes and also dispatch of  1211 MT by road and considering dispatch and  transaction till date in respect of payment, short  receipt of bags and also quality claim it has been  agreed by Mr. Hanuman Prasad Ojha and the  representative of PKS Ltd. that the A/c. is finally  treated as settled and closed and there will be no  claim on either side on payment of Rs. 17,25,398.15  by M/s PKS Ltd. for which the D/Ds are to be issued  in favour of Hanuman Prasad Ojha, payable at  Kanpur.

Further, Mr. Hanuman Prasad Ojha has confirmed  being taken all legal formalities in respect of  purchase and dispatch of the above mentioned 10  rakes and 1211 MT by road for export to  Bangladesh with the Govt. of U.P. and further  confirmed that if anything has not yet been complied  with, the same will be done by him as may be  necessary by the Govt. of U.P. and in case of any  deficiency he will be solely responsible for the  same."

23.     Yet again in respect of another account, it was agreed: "After reconciliation of the purchase and dispatch  till 10.05.2000 of the above quantity in respect of  payment, it has been agreed by Mr. Hanuman Prasad  Ojha and the representative of PKS Ltd. that the A/c.  is finally treated as settled and closed and there will  be no claim on either side on payment of Rs.  40,73,860.24 by M/s. PKS Ltd. for which the D/Ds  are to be issued in the following manner.

Shree Shyamji Udyog \026 Rs. 32,00,000/- payable at  Golagokarnath  Shree Shyamji Rice will \026 Rs. 5,24,861.94 \026 do-           -do-  Hanuman Prasad Ojha \026 Rs. 3,48,998.30 payable at  Kanpur. "

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

24.     If there had been a fraudulent misrepresentation by some of the  respondents at Calcutta and a conspiracy was hatched to commit offences of  cheating or misappropriation, indisputably a part of cause of action arose  within the jurisdiction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

25.     The complainant has alleged that the respondents have committed  offences under Section 120B, 420, 406, 465, 468, 471, 478 and 481 of the  Indian Penal Code.

26.     Although referred to in the complaint petition, but as no investigation  was sought to be prayed for in respect of the assault on Subodh Singh at  Kanpur Railway Station, it may not be necessary for us to address  thereupon.

27.     Respondents were appointed as their agents by the appellants.  There,  thus, existed a relationship of principal and agent.  What were the terms and  conditions of the contract of agency and how criminal misconducts have  been committed while purporting to perform their part of the terms of the  said contract of agency, would be a matter of detailed investigation.

28.     Fraudulent representation being one of the essential ingredients in  respect of commission of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal  Code, a place where such fraudulent misrepresentation has been made  would, thus, give rise to a cause of action for prosecuting the accused.   Similarly, having regard to the ingredients of an offence under Section 406  where the entrustments were made as also the situs where the offence was  completed in the sense that the amount entrusted had not been accounted for  by the agent to the principal will also have a nexus so as to enable to the  Court concerned to exercise its jurisdiction of taking cognizance.  Furthermore, whether the offence forgery of some documents committed or  some other criminal misconducts are said to have been committed in  furtherance of the commission of the principal offence of cheating and  misappropriation wherefor the respondents are said to have entered into a  criminal conspiracy; are required to be investigated.  The Chief Metropolitan  Magistrate, thus, had jurisdiction in the matter in terms of Section 178 read  with Section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  

29.     The High Court has placed strong reliance upon a decision of this  Court in Navinchandra N. Majithia v State of Maharashtra and Others  [(2000) 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 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: "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  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 the Mumbai Police."          30.     This Court arrived at the finding that the High Court should have  issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the State of Meghalaya to transfer the  investigation to the Mumbai Police taking note of the averments made in the  writ petition that the complaint petition filed at Shillong was malafide.    

31.     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.  The question of State of West Bengal’s having a legal  duty in that behalf did not arise.   Only in the event an Investigating Officer,  having regard to the provisions contained in Section 154, 162, 177 and 178

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

of the Code of Criminal Procedure had arrived at a finding that the alleged  crime was not committed within his territorial jurisdiction, could forward the  First Information Report to the Police having jurisdiction in the matter.

32.     Stricto sensu therefore, the High Court should not have issued such a  direction.   Assuming, however, that the 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 malafide.  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 that the Calcutta Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever.

33.     We may notice that this Court in Mosaraf Hossain Khan v  Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. and Others  [(2006) 3 SCC 658],  distinguished  Navinchandra N. Majithia (supra), in the following terms:- "33. In this case, the averments made in the writ  petition filed by the respondent herein even if  given face value and taken to be correct in their  entirety would not confer any jurisdiction upon the  Kerala High Court.  The agreement was entered  into within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High  Court.   The project for which the supply of stone  chips and transportation was being carried out was  also within the State of West Bengal.   Payments  were obviously required to be made within the  jurisdiction of the said Court where either the  contract had been entered into or where payment  was to be made.

34. The appellant did not deny or dispute any of  the averments made in the complaint petition.   In  the writ petition it merely wanted some time to  make the payment.  It is now well known that the  object of the provision of Section 138 of the Act is  that for proper and smooth functioning of business  transaction in particular, use of cheques as  negotiable instruments would primarily depend  upon the integrity and honesty of the parties.  It  was noticed that cheques used to be issued as a  device inter alia for defrauding the creditors and  stalling the payments.  It was also noticed in a  number of decisions of this Court that dishonour of  a cheque by the bank causes incalculable loss,  injury and inconvenience to the payee and the  entire credibility of the business transactions  within and outside the country suffers a serious  setback.  It was also found that the remedy  available in a civil court is a long-drawn process  and an unscrupulous drawer normally takes  various pleas to defeat the genuine claim of the  payee. [See Goa Plast (P) Ltd. v Chico Ursula D’Souza  and Monaben Ketanbhai Shah v State of Gujarat.

36. For the purpose of providing the  aforementioned ingredients of the offence under  Section 138 of the Act, the complainant appellant  was required to prove the facts constituting the  cause of action therefor none of which arose within  the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court.  It is apt  to mention that in Prem Chand Vijay Kumar this  Court held that cause of action within the meaning  of Section 142(b) of the Act can arise only once."

34.     It was furthermore held that ordinarily the High Court should not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

interfere with an order taking cognizance passed by a competent court  except in appropriate cases.

35.     However, the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at  Allahabad has been complied with, as would appear from the counter  affidavit filed on behalf of the State of West Bengal.  It was necessary, with  a view to arrive at the bottom of the matter to conduct investigation into the  allegations contained in the complaint petition by a competent investigating  officer of the State of Uttar Pradesh.   Some offences at various places  situated within the State of Uttar Pradesh had been committed.  The High  Court had not issued any direction as to which Investigating Officer attached  to which Police Station of Uttar Pradesh will have jurisdiction in the matter.

36.     The direction of the High Court, in that way is vague and indefinite.   Investigating Officer attached to one Police Station may feel handicapped in  carrying out the investigation within the entire State.   In this case, it may be  necessary for the Investigating Officer to make investigation even in other  States including Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal etc. for the  aforementioned purpose.  

37.     We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice would be  subserved if this appeal is disposed of with the following directions.

(i)             Further investigation shall be carried out by C.B.C.I.D. of the State  of Uttar Pradesh.  

(ii)            Accused/respondents shall surrender before the Chief Judicial  Magistrate, Allahabad and their applications for grant of bail, if  any, may be considered by the said court on its own merits.   (iii)   The accused/respondent shall render all cooperation with the  Investigating Officer.  They shall appear before the Investigating  Officer as and when directed, if released on bail.    

(iv)    Investigation shall be carried out inter alia on the premise that the  jurisdiction to make investigation shall be subject to the ultimate  decision of the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,  Calcutta as if investigations are being carried out by the C.B.C.I.D.  of the State of Uttar Pradesh in continuation of the investigation  made by the Officer-in-charge of the Shakespeare Sarani Police  Station.  The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Allahabad shall be  entitled to pass appropriate orders from time to time in this behalf.

(v)             The Report on completion of the investigation shall be forwarded  to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta who shall determine  the question of his own jurisdiction at an appropriate stage.   

(vi)    This order, it is made clear, is being passed in exercise of our  extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of  India.   All concerned authorities are directed to carry out these  directions.   

38.     For the views we have taken, it is not necessary for us to embark upon  the question as to whether directions issued by the Judicial Magistrate by an  Order passed under sub-section (3) of Section 156 is a judicial order or an  administrative order.     39.     This appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned directions.