REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.142  OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) NO. 3589 OF 2006)

Shri Rajendra Ramchandra Kavalekar                       ………….. Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Anr.                                  …………..Respondents

With

Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 234 of 2006

O R D E R

S.L.P(Crl.)No. 3589 of 2006

Leave is granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the

High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal 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

1

registered under Sections 120(b), 420, 467, 468 and 471 of 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, 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 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.”

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 Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention

of  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

2

under Sections 420, 461, 465, 468, 471, 473 476 and 120(b) of IPC and

tried  as  CC  No.  855/P/2000  before  the  Additional  Chief  Metropolitan

Magistrate,  11th Court,  Kurla,  Mumbai,  wherein  the  role  of  Kanhayalal

Sharma and his son Prakash Kanhayalal Sharma is being investigated for

having  issued  bogus  and  false  Degree  certificates  to  large  number  of

students purportedly from Ranchi 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 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 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/false

certificates of the Ranchi University.  It has also stated that he had applied

3

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

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, 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,  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 case at Ranchi by the

CBI, SPE, Ranchi, have abused the process of law and it has no locus standi

to file a complaint 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)/2004 registered

4

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,.

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 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.   

4)          As we have already stated, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay

has rejected the writ petition with certain observations and directions.

5) Questioning   the correctness or otherwise of the final judgment and

order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ

Petition No. 1375 of 2006, the appellant is before us in this appeal.   

5

6) We have  heard  Shri  K.T.S.  Tulsi,  learned  Senior  Counsel,  for  the

appellant and Shri Datta, learned senior 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 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  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

Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2007) 7 SCC 640.  

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 obtained forged degree certificate and

by producing that  certificate had secured a job in ITDC as Cashier-cum-

Sales-Assistant and when the Vigilance Department of ITDC tried to verify

6

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 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 the appellant

are false and are not  issued by the University and instead a bogus letter

bearing No. EX/1715 dated 17.7.2000 was sent to ITDC under the name of

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 were declared as genuine and therefore,

the  entire  cause  of  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, 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.   

7

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), 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  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 Vs. State of Maharashtra’s,

case  was  that  the  FIR  was  filed  in  Shillong,  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 of Writ of

Mandamus against the State of  Meghalaya for transfer of the investigation

to  the  Mumbai  Police.   The  High  Court  had  dismissed  the  petition.   In

8

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.   

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 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 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  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 committed.  Reference can be made to the observations

made by this court in  

9

Asit Bhattacharjee Vs. 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 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 petitioner 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  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 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 :  

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 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)

`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

10

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 Mumbai Police.’

31) 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  Mumbai  Police taking note of the averments made in the writ petition that the complaint petition filed at Shillong was mala fide.  

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.  The question of the 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 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  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  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 mala 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 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

11

Special  Judge  (CBI),  Ranchi,  it  is  stated  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 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  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 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,  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

12

and the degree certificate produced by the appellant at the time of securing

the  job  in  ITDC  is  correct  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  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  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 offences

committed in pursuance of conspiracy irrespective of the fact that any or all

the other offences were not committed within the territorial jurisdiction (See

Banwarilal Jhunjhunwala vs. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1620).  

13

17) A bare perusal of the complaint filed would clearly go to show that

the cause  of  action  arose within  the  jurisdiction  of  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 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.  

T.P. (Crl.)No. 234 of 2006

19) In view of the 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 required.  The Transfer Petition is disposed

of accordingly.  

                                                                                 …………………………………J.                                                                                    [ TARUN CHATTERJEE ]

                                                                                 …………………………………J.                                                                                    [ H.L. DATTU ] New Delhi, January 23, 2009.

14