HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
P.K.Jain
MAYA SHANKER PANDEY
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 20 March 1997
Criminal Revision No. 2621 of 1983,
Jurisdiction - Criminal Procedure - The court held that when a Magistrate exercises jurisdiction beyond a particular district, the Court of Session in relation to such Magistrate shall be construed to be the Session Judge exercising jurisdiction in relation to the said district. The appeal should have been preferred before the Sessions Judge of the district where the offence was committed. The Sessions Judge erroneously held that he could not hear the appeal, which was not disposed of on merits. The order passed by the Sessions Judge was set aside, and the case was sent back for fresh disposal on merit.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist was convicted under the Indian Railways Act and the Indian Penal Code. The appeal before the Sessions Judge, Varanasi was rejected on the ground of jurisdiction. Another appeal before the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur was dismissed as barred by limitation, based on the earlier rejection by the Sessions Judge, Varanasi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur erroneously held that he could not hear the appeal, which was not disposed of on merits. The order passed by the Sessions Judge was set aside, and the case was sent back for fresh disposal on merit.
Issues: Jurisdiction, Disposal of Appeal, Limitation
Ratio Decidendi: When a Magistrate exercises jurisdiction beyond a particular district, the Court of Session in relation to such Magistrate shall be construed to be the Session Judge exercising jurisdiction in relation to the said district. The appeal should have been preferred before the Sessions Judge of the district where the offence was committed. The Sessions Judge erroneously held that he could not hear the appeal, which was not disposed of on merits.
Final Decision: The revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside, and the case is sent back for fresh disposal on merit.
Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A. G. A. for State. It appears from the record that revisionist Maya Shanker Pandey was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Eastern Railway, Moghal Sarai, District Varanasi under Sections 113/122 of the Indian Railways Act and section 332,1. P. C. one years R. I. under Section 332, I. P. C. , one months R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 150 under Section 122, Indian Railways Act and to pay a penalty of Rs. 11. 55 under Section 113 of the Indian Railways Act.
2. The revisionist preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Varanasi which was rejected on the ground that the Sessions Judge, Varanasi had no jurisdiction. Since the offence was committed within local P. S. G. R. P. , Dildar Nagar in District Ghazipur, the Magistrate exercised jurisdiction over an area beyond the limits of Varanasi, the Sessions Judge, Varanasi held that Railway Magistrate Varanasi is also the Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st Class of the remaining Districts of Varanasi Zone (Railway) and when he tries a case of a District other than Varanasi, the functions as Judicial Magistrate 1st class of that District and this is so irrespective of his headquarter or the place of trial. Consequently the revisionist tiled
another appeal before the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur with the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. The learned Sessions Judge Ghazipur rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation on the ground that earlier appeal preferred before the Sessions Judge, Varanasi was dismissed vide order dated 16-3- 1981. Therefore, another Court of Session cannot rehear the matter.
3. It is argued that earlier appeal was not decided on merit and it was specifically held that the Sessions Judge, Varanasi did not have jurisdiction and it was the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur who had jurisdiction to hear the matter in question. In these circumstances the appeal filed before the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur could not have been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur on ground that another Sessions Judge can not rehear the appeal. There is force in the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist. Sub- section (3) of section 14 of Code of Criminal Procedure as inserted by Cr. P. C. (Amendment) Act, 1978 reads as follows:-
"where the local jurisdiction of a Magistrate appointed under Section 11 or section 13 or section 18, extends to an area beyond the District, or the metropolitan area, as the case may be, in which he ordinarily holds court, any reference in this Code to the Court of Sessions Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall, in relation to such Magistrate, throughout the area within his local jurisdiction, be construed, unless the context otherwise requires as a reference to the Court of Sessions, Chief Judicial Magistrate, or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, exercising jurisdiction in relation to the said District or Metropolitan area. "
4. From a plain reading of the above section, it is evident that when a Magistrate is appointed under Sections 11, 13, or 18 of the Code and he exercises local jurisdiction to an area beyond a particular District, then the Court of Session in relation to such Magistrate shall be construed to be the Session Judge exercising jurisdiction in relation to the said District. There is no dispute that the Railway Magistrate, Moghal Sarai, Varanasi exercised jurisdiction besides the District Varanasi and other several districts. Therefore, the appeal in the instant case should have been preferred before the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur. Since earlier appeal preferred before Sessions Judge, Varanasi was not disposed of on merits, the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur could not have dismissed the appeal of the revisionist on the ground that earlier appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Varanasi on
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.