( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, against the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi dated 12th October, 1993. The Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and it has been observed that there is no force in the contention that the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case. It is further observed that all offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and thus the Court of Magistrate was competent to try the case. It is further mentioned in the order that the proceedings in this case had not become void at any stage and no fundamental rights of the petitioner were violated at any stage. It is also mentioned that the application has been filed only to delay the proceedings.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts necessary to decide this petition are recapitulated. The petitioner alongwith 10 others was charged under Section 420/1and9/120-B read with section 420 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. Three FIRs were registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation on the basis of the complaints lodged by the United Commercial Bank, Dena Bank and Bank of Baroda. The allegations in the complaints are that byproducing bogus Hundi, false motor transport receipts, false hypothecation statements and pledge orders containing inflated figures of stocks, the banks were cheated to a total sum of Rs-1,31,09,538. 64.

( 3 ) THE charge sheet was filed on 23rd February, 1978 in the above matter. The case was tried by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Delhi) and thereafter for some time by the Metropolitan Magistrate and thereafter by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. Learned counsel for the C. B. I, submitted that all the 209 witnesses have been examined and the matter is ripe for final arguments. During the course of investigation, an application was moved by the Central Bureau of Investigation for granting pardon to one of the accused, namely, H. K. Jhala, the confession of that accused was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate between 17th May, 1977 to 24th May, 1977.

( 4 ) H. K. Jhala, an accomplish made a confessional statement under section 164 before Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi from 17th May, 1977 to 24th May, 1977. He was tendered pardon under section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 22nd July, 1977. Admittedly before H. K. Jhala could be examined as a witness, he died on 4th April, 1979. After the death of H. K. Jhala, the case was tried by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and 209 witnesses were examined by him. The statements of the accused persons were recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter the case was transferred to the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi who had been conducting the case thereafter.

( 5 ) THE petitioner filed an application in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on the ground that the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try this case because according to Section 306 (4) and Sub- Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case ought to have been transferred to the Court of Sessions and only the Court of Sessions has the jurisdiction to try this case. Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:

"306. Tender of pardon to accomplice.-

(1) With a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence to which this section applies, the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate at any stage of the investigation or inquiry into, or the trial of, the offence, and the Magistra