Power of High Court to direct trial of cases.

These petitions have been filed either to direct the Chief Presidency Magistrate to try the various Calendar Cases pending before him or to transfer them to the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poonamallee. In these cases after the issue of summons to the accused a preliminary objection was taken by the accused to the trial of the cases by the Chief Presidency Magistrate on the ground that the Chief Presidency Magistrate has no territorial jurisdiction to try the cases. In the affidavit filed in support of these petitions on behalf of the complainant in paragraph 4 it is stated thus:

“ An objection was raised by the accused in C.C. No. 3546 of 1958 that the Presidency Magistrate’s Court has no jurisdiction and the place where the factory is situated is within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poonamallee. In verifying the records at the Collector’s Office I find that this factory in which the offence was committed is also situated within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poonamallee.”

In paragraph 5 it is stated that every offence will have to be enquired into and tried by the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the offence is committed. In paragraph 6 it is stated that it has become necessary that the mistake in filing the complaint before the Chief Presidency Magistrate should be condoned and the case be directed to be heard by the Chief Presidency Magistrate himself or the case may be transferred to the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poonamallee. It is clear from the averments made in the affidavit that the objection of the accused to the Chief Presidency Magistrate trying the case is with regard to his territorial jurisdiction. This objection is well founded. It is only the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poonamallee, who has territorial jurisdiction to try these cases. In view of the objection raised by the accused the complainant prays that these cases may better be tried by the Chief Presidency Magistrate or they may be transferred from the file of the Chief Presidency Magistrate to the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poonamallee. These petitions are resisted by the accused.

I may at once dispose of the prayer to direct the Chief Presidency Magistrate to try the cases. This Court has no power to direct any Magistrate to enquire into a case who has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case unless it be by means of transfer of the case. If at the time of the institution of the proceedings a Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try those proceedings then the High Court would have no power to invest that Court with jurisdiction to try the proceedings. In short, the High Court cannot invest a Court with territorial jurisdiction which it does not possess. That prayer cannot, therefore, be granted.

The only other prayer to be considered is with regard to the transfer of the cases from the file of the Chief Presidency Magistrate to the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poonamallee. It is contended on behalf of the respondents (accused) that such transfer cannot be effected. In support of their contention reliance is place4 on the decisions in Assistant Sessions Judge, North Arcot v. Ramammal1, In re Sikka Goundan2, which is followed in Suddamma v. Emperor3, and also on certain observations contained in Rangammannar Chetti v. Emperor4. The above decisions fully support the stand taken by the defence. But it seems to me that the decision in Assistant Sessions Judge, North Arcot v. Ramammal1,which is the basis of all the subsequent decisions and which is a Bench decision requires reconsideration. In the above case the question that arose for determination was whether the case committed to the Court of Session, North Arcot Division can be heard by the Sessions Judge of that division when the offence committed by the accused was in a place within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge, Salem. There is no doubt that the Magistrate who committed