P.K. Misra, J.

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the accused person against the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in transferring the case C.C.No.6063 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai to the file of Mahila Court, Chennai.

2. While considering the matter, a contention has been raised before the learned single Judge to the effect that a Sessions Judge was posted as Mahila Court after such Mahila Court was established by the Government. However, the power of a Metropolitan Magistrate could not have been conferred on such Mahila Court or the Sessions Judge without a specific notification by the State Government establishing such court of Metropolitan Magistrate and, therefore, the proceedings pending before Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate should not have been transferred to such Mahila Court.

3. Since such question raised a question of law of importance and also relating to jurisdiction and constitution of Court, learned singe Judge thought it appropriate to place the matter before a Division Bench and that is how the matter is now placed before the Division Bench.

4. The State Government had issued Ms.No.556 dated 26. 2002 sanctioning the Constitution of two Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Courts), one at Chennai and the other at Coimbatore to be headed by District and Sessions Judges for speedy trial and disposal of cases of offences committed against women and also cases under other social laws enacted by the Central and State Government for the protection of women. Thereafter, the High Court issued Notification No.95 of 2002 dated 17. 2002, which is extracted in extenso:-

"In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 9(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) the High Court hereby appoints the Judicial Officers mentioned in Column (1) below to be the Sessions Judges to preside over the Court of Sessions in the Sessions Division and Head Quarters noted against their names in Column (2) below with effect from the date on which they took charge:

In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 11(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), the High Court, Madras, hereby confers on Tmt.S.Kalavathy the powers of Judicial Magistrate of First Class in the Coimabtore District with Head Quarters at Coimbatore with effect from the date on which she took charge. She shall exercise all the powers of Judicial Magistrate First Class under the said Code.

In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 16(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), the High Court, Madras, hereby appoints Tmt.S.Vimala, to be the Metropolitan Magistrate in the Metropolitan area of Chennai from the date on which she took charge. She shall exercise all the powers of the Metropolitan Magistrate under the said Code. "

5. In the present case, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the High Court had no jurisdiction to appoint Smt.S. Vimala to be the Metropolitan Magistrate in the Metropolitan area of Chennai in the absence of creation of such a post by the State Government. Incidentally the learned counsel has also questioned the wisdom and legality of the notification of the High Court conferring the power of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class on Smt.S. Kalavathy, who as a Sessions Judge was appointed as Mahila Court for Coimbatore District.

6. The notification issued by the High Court has already been extracted in extenso. The second sub-paragraph of such notification relates to conferment of power of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class on the Sessions Judge, who had been appointed as the Mahila Court for Coimbatore district. The Notification specifically refer to Section 11(2) of the Code of Criminal procedure. Section 11 is extracted in extenso.

"11. Courts of Judicial Magistrates.-(1) In every district (not being a metropolitan area), there shal