A Magistrate cannot drop a proceeding after issue of process without giving further opportunity to the parties to lead evidence to establish existence or otherwise of territorial jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Misra, J. - Rama Chandra Choudhury (complainant) filed a complaint on 10-5-1963 alleging that Debi Rani Choudhury (accused No. 1) is his legally married wife and that they lived as husband and wife till August, 1961. They have a daughter aged about 6 years and a son aged 2 years. Narayan Chandra Ghose (accused No. 2), the proprietor of Milap Hotel at Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh, kidnapped his wife and children from his lawful guardianship during his absence. Accused No. 1 started a case for divorce in the Court of the District Judge at Visakhapatnam which was dismissed. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 went through a void marriage and are living as husband and wife. The complaint was thus filed under Sections 363 and 494, Indian Penal Code against accused No. 1 and under Sections 363, 497 and 498, Indian Penal Code against accused No. 2. On the very day the learned Magistrate passed the following order:

Statement of complainant recorded on S.A. I am satisfied that there is prima facie case under Sections 363, 498 against accused Narayan Prasad Ghosh and u/s 494 against Debi Rani Choudhury. Cognizance taken. Summon the accused persons. ... ... ... ... ...

On 7-8-1963 an application was filed before the learned Magistrate to review his order dated 10-5-1963 on the allegation that the offences of which cognizance had been taken were triable by a competent Magistrate at Visakhapatnam, and that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Titilagarh, before whom the complaint had been tiled, had no jurisdiction to try the said offences. The learned Magistrate accepted the contention and passed the following order on that very day:

Heard the advocates of the parties. On the facts already stated in the complaint petition and in the initial deposition of the complainant, I am satisfied that there is no case u/s 494, Indian Penal Code against Debi Rani Choudhury. Relying on the decision of our own High Court reported in Krushna Mohan and Others Vs. Sudhakar Das and Others I hold that this Court has inherent powers to review its own orders and therefore

(I) ? discharge accused Debi Rani Choudhury as this, Court has no jurisdiction.

This order has been set aside by the learned Sessions J. judge, Bolangir, on 21-8-1964. He held that there was no material on record to show that the second marriage took place at Visakhapatnam and that the proper course for the Magistrate was to r record evidence as to the place where the second marriage took place and thereafter to decide whether he had jurisdiction or not. This revision is against the order of the- learned Session's Judge.

2. Mr. Rath advanced the following contentions

(i) The complaint petition closely scrutinised, shows that the second marriage is alleged to have taken place at Visakhapatnam.

(ii) It is for the complainant to show that the Court has jurisdiction to try a particular offence. If the complaint petition is silent as to where the second marriage took place, it is liable to be dismissed in limine and the learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance.

(iii) If the complaint petition and the examination of the accused on oath u/s 200, Code of Criminal Procedure did not indicate the place of second marriage, and illegal process had been issued against the accused, it was open to the learned Magistrate to quash the proceeding on the protest of the accused, after their appearance in obedience to the summonses, without taking further evidence as to the question of territial jurisdiction.

3. The first contention that the complaint shows that the second marriage took place at Visakhapatnam is not correct. From the chronology of facts, narrated in the complaint petition, one may largely infer that the second marriage might have taken place at Visakhapatnam. There is, however, no unequivocal admission. In the circumstances, it would be difficult to bold that the second marriage took place at Visakhapatnam and not within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Titilagarh.

4. The second content