B.H. Marlapalle, J.

1. This criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arises from the order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 79 of 1986 on 15/1/1988 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - Sessions Court, Mumbai, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 381 of I.P.C. for causing the murder of two of his colleagues i.e. Omprakash Dubey - Midshipman and Hanumansingh Rathod -Seaman on 24/11/1985 at about 11.30 a.m. while on board INS Ranjit. He has been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 and RI for five years for the offence punishable under Section 381 of I.P.C. The appellant was on bail during trial and he continued to be on bail during the pendency of this appeal as well. Thus, during the last more than 24 years he has been on bail and this appeal for some or the other reasons remained pending before this court for more than 21 years, though it arises from the double murder of young sailors at the hands of one of their own colleagues.

The appellant was born in 1963 and completed his graduation in 1984. He was commissioned in the Indian Navy in March 1984, and had joined the Naval Academy at Cochin in August 1984. He completed his basic training in December 1984 and joined INS Ranjit as a Midshipman in July 1985.

Ironically, the appeal is succeeding only on technical ground so as to remand the Sessions Case for a de novo trial, but by quashing and setting aside the impugned order of conviction and sentence. This situation has arisen for the sole reason that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate of 19th Court, Mumbai was not made aware of the compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1978 (the Rules for short) framed by the Central Government under Section 475 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. We record our anguish for the failure on the part of the Special Public Prosecutor as well as the defence counsel who conducted the trial before the Sessions Court and it is evident that none of them appeared to be aware of the said Rules and the mandatory procedure to be followed thereunder by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate before committing the case to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. It is true that this point of jurisdiction was not raised before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the form and manner that has been raised before us for the first time and we are required to decide the said preliminary point of jurisdiction by following the law laid down in the case of Moly and anr. vs. State of Kerala [(2004) 4 SCC 584] read with -Delhi Special Police Establishment, New Delhi vs. Lt. Col. S.K. Loraiya 2548] [AIR 1972 SC 2548], Superintendent and Rememberancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Usha Ranjan Roy Choudhury and anr. [1986 (Supp) SCC 190] and Union of India, through Major General H.C. Pathak vs. Major S.K. Sharma 490] [(1987) 3 SCC 490].

2. The prosecution case unfolds thus,

From 20/11/1985 onwards the Naval exercises were in progress and INS Ranjit had also participated in these exercises. On 24/11/1985 INS Ranjit was harboured at the Mumbai Port and the accused as well as both the deceased were part of the Naval pool of INS Ranjit during this exercise called "Barracuda II". The said operation was terminated on 24/11/1985 at about 11.15 a.m. or so and at that time Lt. Commander Dhamdhere - PW 1 was the Commanding Officer of the Ship as both his seniors were not present on the Ship. The Commanding Officer along with the accused, deceased Omprakash Dubey, Lt. Nikula, Lt. Commander Palsule and 2-3 other officers was having tea in the ward room of INS Ranjit between 11 a.m. to 11.15 a.m. and during this time, the Commanding Officer received a message that the exercise was terminated and this message was received by him from the Duty Signal Man. The Commanding Officer