Court Lacking Jurisdiction Should Submit Case To Jurisdictional Court Instead Of Dismissing On Technicality: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has held that if a matter comes before a Court for adjudication which does not have jurisdiction to hear and dispose the same, it must submit the case to the jurisdictional Court for appropriate action, instead of dismissing it on technical ground of lack of jurisdiction.

While remitting a case, filed under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ('BNSS'), back to the jurisdictional Court subsequent to its dismissal by the non-jurisdictional Court on technical ground, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed –

“It is to be understood that the Courts are meant for the litigants to remedy their grievance and we owe our existence to this Institution “popularly referred as Courts” and, therefore, if the litigants approach the Court to get their grievance remedied, it should be the duty of the Court to decide or deal with the grievance of the litigants notwithstanding the litigation has merit or not…The moral of the discussion is not to throw away the grievance of the party approaching the Court on technicality at threshold, when such matter can be decided on merits.”

Case Background

The vehicle of the petitioner was seized in connection with a case relating to commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act. The petitioner filed an application under Section 503 of the BNSS for interim release of the vehicle in his favour, pending the confiscation proceedings.

However, the Additional Sessions Judge, Sundargarh dismissed such application, not on merit but on the technical ground, observing that he has no jurisdiction to dispose of the matter when the original case is pending before the Sessions Judge awaiting final form. Being dissatisfied with such dismissal, the petitioner filed this revision petition, under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the BNSS, before the High Court.

Court's Observations

The Court noted that the case records had been inadvertently transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, which indeed does not have jurisdiction to decide the matter especially considering the fact that the main case is pending before the Court of Sessions Judge, who is present and functioning.

“…but this Court impresses upon the learned Additional Sessions Judge that if he has got no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, he should have re-submitted the record to the concerned Sessions Judge, instead of proceeding further to dismiss it inasmuch as law never intends to create any bar against re-submission of the record to the concerned Court which has although jurisdiction to deal with the matter, but inadvertently transferred the same to a Court not having jurisdiction for disposal of the case on merits,” the Court said.

Justice Satapathy stressed that the law needs the Court to hear a party who approaches it with his grievance and in no circumstance, the grievance of the petitioner should be thrown away at the threshold on the technicality of jurisdiction, unless the same is not cognizable by the said Court.

“…but in case it is found by the concerned Court dealing with the matter that it has got no jurisdiction and another Court is having jurisdiction, it is plain and simple for the said Court not having jurisdiction to resubmit the record to the concerned Court having jurisdiction to deal with the matter,” he added.

In the present case, the Court observed, the vehicle of the petitioner was seized in connection with an offence under the NDPS Act. Section 60 of the Act read with Section 503 of the BNSS provide power to the Sessions Court to pass order for interim custody/release of the vehicle, subject to its satisfaction in accordance with law, while the confiscation proceeding is pending.

Acknowledging the error committed by the Additional Sessions Judge in dismissing the application, the Court deemed it apposite to remit the case back to the Sessions Judge, who is in seisin over the main case, for fresh disposal of the application in accordance with law by giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

Case Title: Duryodhan Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case No: CRLREV No. 132 of 2025

Date of Order: March 18, 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. M.P. Behera, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. A. Pradhan, Addl. Public Prosecutor

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 53

Click Here To Read/Download Order