An offence committed within the jurisdiction of one Sessions Judge cannot be tried by another Sessions Judge, unless there is a direction from the State Government under Section 185, Criminal Procedure Code.

1. :- An important question of law is involved in this case, as to whether an offence committed within the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, can be tried by Sessions Judge, Kota. To dispose of this revision, narration of the facts is necessary, which are as follows.

2. One Prem Prakash Goyal is a resident of Thoon, Tehsil Nagar, District Bharatpur. On 2-1-78, he boarded 101 Up train at about 6.45 P. M. from Bharatpur. He was to go to Nadbai, which also lies in Bharatpur, for his onward journey to Thoon. There was lot of rush in the train and Prem Prakash Goyal and his sister occupied seats in 1st class compartment. No sooner the train left Bharatpur Station, 3 boys entered the compartment and took their seats. The train stopped at Helak Station, which lies between Nadbai and Bharatpur and is also within Bharatpur District within the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, but the moment the train left Helak Station, it is alleged that one of those three boys took out a knife and at the point of knife they committed robbery. All the ornaments, which were on the person of Meena Kumari, sister of P. P. Goyal, were taken away by the accused persons. No sooner the train stopped at Paprera Station, which too is within the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, the boys made their escape. A report was lodged by Shri P. P. Goyal and it also contained the details of ornaments etc. of robbery. During the investigation of the case, the three accused-petitioners were apprehended and the alleged stolen property was recovered from them on their informations. Thereafter, a report under Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code was submitted by the S.H.O., G.R.P. Bharatpur in the Court of Railway Magistrate, Kota, and he committed the accused persons to the Court of Sessions Judge, Kota, who transferred the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kota. Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kota, an objection was raised on behalf of the petitioners that he had no jurisdiction to try the case, inasmuch as the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kota held that he had jurisdiction to try the case.

3. Mr. Mehrish, the learned Advocate for the accused-petitioners submits that an offence can only be tried under Chap. XIII, Criminal Procedure Code and under Section 177, Criminal Procedure Code every offence ordinarily is to be enquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. He submits that merely because the jurisdiction of Railway Magistrate, Kota extends to Railway Station, Bharatpur, an offence committed within the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, cannot be tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Kota, and it was mandatory for the Railway Magistrate to have committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur for trial in accordance with law. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has repelled this argument only on the ground that this Court in Harak v. State (Criminal Revn. No. 286 of 1976) has held that the word "situate" occurring in Section 435, Criminal Procedure Code (1898) regarding revisional jurisdiction is to be so interpreted that a revision will lie under Section 435, Criminal Procedure Code (1898) to the Court of Session to whom the learned Magistrate is subordinate.But, to my mind, that analogy will not apply to the trial of the case. Under Section 397, Criminal Procedure Code (new), which corresponds to Section 435, Criminal Procedure Code (1898), this Court or the Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court situated within its or his local jurisdiction. Admittedly, the Railway Magistrate, Kota is having his Court in Kota City, and as such, the Court of Railway Magistrate is situated within the local jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Kota. Therefore, so far as the appeal or revision is concerned, even with regard t