Order :- This revision filed by the State is directed against the order dated 9th August, 1978 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajkot in Criminal Case No. 47 of 1977 holding that, so far as opponent No. 1, that is- original accused No. 2 is concerned, the said court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case.

2. A few facts giving rise to the passing of the said order may be briefly stated as follows :-

3. Original accused No. 1 who is a resident of Jetpur in district Rajkot was engaged in the business of selling fertilisers manufactured by original accused No. 2 at Baroda Opponent No. 2, that is- the original complainant, Agro-Inspector visited the premises of accused No. 1 at Jetpur and took samples from the gunny bags of fertilisers of the Alembic Company, that is- accused No. 2. On analysis, it was found that the sample of fertilisers was not of prescribed standard. The complainant, therefore, lodged a complaint for prosecuting both the accused for the offence under clause (a) of sub-clause (1) of clause 13 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957 ('fertiliser order') read with Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ('the Act'). So far as accused No. 1 is concerned, he pleaded guilty and he was convicted and sentenced by the court on his plea being accepted. So far as accused No. 2 is concerned, an application was given at Ex. 23 on 23-6-1978 on its behalf, inter alia contending that the factory of the said company was situated at Baroda; that the work of manufacture of fertilisers was being done at Baroda and that, therefore, so far as accused No. 2 was concerned, no part of the alleged offence was committed in Jetpur and the court had therefore no jurisdiction to entertain and try the said case.

4. The learned Magistrate by his order at Ex. 25 below Ex. 23 upheld the contention raised on behalf of accused No. 2 and held that so far as the said accused was concerned, he had no jurisdiction to entertain the case. Aggrieved by this order, the State has preferred this revision application.

5. Now, there is no dispute that accused No. 1 was acting independently and not for and on behalf of accused No. 2 while stocking and effecting sales of fertilisers which he had purchased from Baroda where it was manufactured by accused No. 2, and therefore, prima facie, Jetpur court would not have jurisdiction to try accused No. 2 for the offence punishable under clause 13 (1) (a) of the Fertiliser Order read with Section 7 of the Act on the ground that accused No. 2 was guilty of manufacturing fertiliser which was not in accordance with the prescribed standard.

6. But Mr. Nanavati, the learned Public Prosecutor, relies on the provisions of Section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('the Code') in support of the State's case that Jetpur court also would have jurisdiction to try accused No. 2 for the offence of manufacture of substandard fertiliser, in spite of the fact that the process of manufacture was done at Baroda. Section 180 of the Code reads thus:-

"When an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence or which would be an offence if the doer were capable of committing an offence, the first mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction either act was done".

It is contended by Mr. Nanavati that in the instant case, the act of stocking substandard fertiliser is an offence by reason of its relation to the act of manufacture of such fertiliser and that, therefore, though the act of manufacture was done at Baroda and the act of stocking was done at Jetpur, as provided under Section 180 of the Code, the court within whose local jurisdiction either act was done viz. the act of manufacture or the act of stocking, would be competent to try the offender and that, therefore, the court at Jetpur was also competent to try accused No. 2 for the offence of manufacture of substandard fertiliser in contravention of the pro