1. This is a reference made to this Court by the learned Sessions Judge, Tellicherry. The circumstances under which the reference happened to be made are as follows :

2. One Moideen Beary filed a complaint before the Judicial Sub-Magistrate, Kasaragod against the respondents before us for alleged commission of offences punishable under S.324 and 447, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sub-Magistrate examined the complainant (S.200, Cr. P. C.) and registered a case under the said sections against seven of the accused persons and declined to proceed against the remaining three. Later, before the enquiry started it was found that the occurrence that gave rise to the complaint had taken place beyond the jurisdiction of the Kasaragod Sub-Magistrate. The place of occurrence lay within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Magistrate, Hosdrug. Being appraised of these facts the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tellicherry withdrew the case from the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Kasaragod and transferred it to the file of Sub-Magistrate, Hosdrug for disposal according to law. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate purported to act under S.528 (2), Criminal P. C. The complainant then moved the District Magistrate, Tellicherry in revision (Criminal Revision Case No.1 of 1957) to quash the entire proceedings that had taken place before the Sub-Magistrate Kasaragod, as also the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tellicherry, transferring the case to the Court of the Sub-Magistrate Hosdrug. According to the complainant the Sub-Magistrate of Kasaragod had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or to decide that the case need be proceeded only against seven out of the ten accused persons. It was also contended before the District Magistrate that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate transferring the case laid before a court having no jurisdiction (territorial) to receive and try it, was illegal. Though the revision was opposed by the present respondents the District Magistrate accepted the contentions raised before him on behalf of the complainant and referred to the decision in Sowbagiammal v. Raphael -(1954) Mad. Weekly Notes 662-as authority for accepting them. In that case Somasundaram, J. held that when a complaint is laid before a court which has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain it, what the Magistrate concerned had to do was to return the complaint for presentation to the proper court (vide S.201, Cr, P.C.). However in the operative part of his order the District Magistrate did not give effect to the rule enunciated in the above decision or to the provision of S.201, Criminal P. C, but thought that a re-transfer to the court of the Sub-Magistrate, Kasaragod "would involve a further illegality as the transfer is to a court which has no jurisdiction to try it". He therefore quashed the entire proceedings in all the three courts, namely, the Sub-Magistrate's Court, Kasaragod, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court, Tellicherry and the Sub-Magistrate's Court, Hosdrug, and directed the complainant to file a fresh complaint before the proper court. This however was done even though the complainant definitely pointed out to the District Magistrate that the proper course for him would be to send the case to the Sub-Magistrate, Kasaragod with a direction to him to return the complaint for, presentation to the proper court.

3. In Calendar Revision the learned Sessions Judge of Tellicherry found that the course adopted by the District Magistrate, that is, to quash the entire proceedings in relation to the case was ultra vires of his powers. During the course of his comments on the District Magistrate's order the learned Sessions Judge remarks:

"The proper course the District Magistrate, in these circumstances, should have adopted was to order a re-transfer of the complaint to the court of the Sub-Magistrate, Kasaragod for being returned to the complainant for presentation to the proper court having jurisdiction for fresh enquiry. There is nothi