( 1 ) THIS is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Lucknow recommending that the appeal filed in his Court by one Shori Lal in respect of an offence which is alleged to have been committed in the district of Dehra-Dun be ordered to be received by the learned Sessions Judge of Dehra Dun.

( 2 ) IT appears that Shori Lal, son of Quran Datta Mal, an assistant station master of Doiwala, was tried by Shri Girja Shankar Misra, Special Magistrate, U. P. with his headquarters at Lucknow, for an offence under Section 161, Penal Code. The trial was held by the learned Magistrate at lucknow. The offence was alleged to have been committed at Doiwala, district Dehra Dun. On 5-7-1950, he was convicted of the offence under Section 161, Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or in default of payment of the fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further terms of six months. Against his conviction Shori Lal preferred an appeal on 11-7-1950 in the Court of the Civil and Sessions judge of Dehra Dun, who was also the Additional Sessions Judge of Saharaupur at Dehra Dun. After hearing Counsel for the appellant the learned Additional Sessions Judge returned the memorandum of appeal on 18-7-1s50, with the following order :

"i have heard the Counsel for the appellant. He concedes that the appeal does not lie here and should have been filed at Lucknow where the trial was held. Let the appeal be, therefore, returned for presentation to proper Court".

Thereafter the petition of appeal, along with an application for bail, was presented to the Court of the Sessions Judge of Lucknow on 19-7-1950. On the office report the question arose before the learned Judge whether the appeal lay to his Court inasmuch as the offence was alleged to have been committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that the appeal as presented to him was not competent. He has accordingly made the reference to this Court.

( 3 ) IT is clear that the offence under Section 161, Penal Code is said to have been committed at doiwala, district Debradun. Further, it is clear that Shri Girja Shankar Misra has been appointed a Special Magistrate with powers of a Magistrate of the first class to try, or commit, cases of the special Police Establishment, throughout the United Provinces. The relevant notification is home Department (Criminal) Notification No. 2787/ VI-342-1949 dated 27-9-1949. It reads thus :

"under Section 14, Criminal P. C. 1898 (V of 1698) the Governor is pleased to confer upon Shri girja shankar Misra for a period of four months the powers of a Magistrate of the first class to try or commit cases, investigated by the Government of India, Special Police Establishment, throughout the United Provinces. "under Sub-section 2 of Section 190 of the said Code the Governor is further pleased to empower Shri Girja Shankar Misra to take cognizance under Sub-section (1) Clause (b) of the said Section of offences for which he may try or commit for trial throughout the United provinces. "

Apparently the period of time for which the appointment was made in the first instance was subsequently extended.

( 4 ) THE Magistrate has his headquarters at Lucknow. The trial was actually held at Lucknow. The question is whether in these circumstances the appeal would lie to the Court of Sessions at lucknow or at Dehradun. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the State. On behalf of the appellant it has been contended that the appeal lies to the court of the Sessions Judge, Lucknow, inasmuch as the headquarters of the Special Magistrate, who held the trial, were at Lucknow and the trial and conviction of the appellant took place at lucknow within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge of Lucknow on the other hand, the learned Counsel for the St