( 1. ) BY this order the references made in Criminal Revision No. 1] of 1976, Basudeosingh v. State of M. P. , Criminal Revision No. 12 of 1976, Basudeosingh v. State of M. P. and Criminal Revision No. 13 of 1976, Basudeosingh v. State of M. P. , are also answered.

( 2. ) THE following questions have been referred to the Division Bench for consideration:

1. Whether the State Government is empowered under Section 11 (1) of the New Code to appoint Judicial Magistrate of a particular district to have his headquarters outside the district? 2. Whether one person so appointed by this Court to be the Judicial Magistrate of different districts to try all C B. I. cases aris- ing in those districts can have his headquarters at one particular place

( 3. ) IF the State Government and the High Court are so empowered to issue notifications, then what should be the forum of appeal against the judgments and orders passed by such Magistrate?

3. In Criminal Revision No. 92 of 1976, the non-applicant was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 420 and 465, I. P. C. by the Special Police Establishment of the Central Government, for having cheated the Heavy Electricals Limited, Bhopal, and also for having forged two certificates. The non-applicant was convicted for supplying inferior steel bars to the Heavy Electricals Ltd. , Bhopal and for forging the tests certificates for the materials supplied between April to June 1962, by Shri L. S. Nihalani, Special Magistrate (Judicial Magistrate, First Class ). Indore, who was empowered to try cases instituted by the Special Police Establishment. Since the offences were committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sessions Court at Bhopal, the non-applicant preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Bhopal, although Shri L. S. Nihalani had his headquarters at Indore. The Sessions Judge made a reference to this Court as to whether an appeal could be entertained by him or it has to be entertained by the Sessions Judge, Indore.

( 4. ) IN Criminal Revisions 11 of 1976, 12 of 1976 and 13 of 1976, the applicant Basu-deosingh was prosecuted by the Special Police Establishment of the Central Government in three different cases under Sees. 409 and 477-A, I. P. C for having committed criminal breach of trust and also for having forged certain documents in respect of various sums while working as cashier in the National Coal Development Corporation at Baikun-thapur in Sarguja district These offences were committed within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court at Ambikapur, district Sarguja in respect of embezzlement of the amounts of Rs. 5171. 36 Ps; Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 5397. 63 paise respectively. He was convicted for the aforesaid offences by Shri D. S. Pathak, Special Magistrate (Judicial Magistrate, First Class), who was empowered to try cases instituted by the Special Police Establishment. Against his convictions the applicant preferred three appeals before the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, as the headquarter of Shri D. S. Pathak was located at Jabalpur. However, all the appeals have been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the offences arose within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court t Ambika- pur, district Sarguja and, therefore, the appeals could not be entertained at Jabalpur.

( 5. ) IT may be mentioned here that the prosecutions in all these cases were launched before the new Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 came into force. Formerly in this State there were two Special Magistrates constituted under Section 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to try cases instituted by the Special Police Establishment of the Central Government under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The two Special Magistrates had their headquarters at Indore and Jabalpur respectively. The Special Magistrate at Indore was given jurisdiction over 21 districts; while the Special Magistrate at Jabalpur was given jurisdiction over remaining 24 districts of th