Decided on August 01,1935

EMPEROR Appellant


John Beaumont, Kt. , C. J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application asking us to review an order made against the applicant under Section 118 of the Criminal Procedure Code directing him to execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00q with one surety for the like amount to be of good behaviour for one year.
(2.) THE only point of law which arises in revision is as to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate who dealt with the matter. THE case was originally on, the file of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, First Class, Eastern Division, Poona, and it was transferred from his file by the Additional District Magistrate, Poona, to the file of the Special Magistrate, First Class, Poona Cantonment. Now having regard to the provisions of Sections 107 and 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in order to establish jurisdiction in the Magistrate to make an order, it must be shown that the village where the accused lives and where the act complained of has been committed (i. e. , the village of Supe), is within the local jurisdiction of the Special Magistrate, First Class, Poona Cantonment. THE village of Supe is admittedly not within the limits of the Poona Cantonment, but it is within the limits of the Poona district. THE question whether the Magistrate of Poona Cantonment has jurisdiction or not in the whole of the Poona district depends on the construction of Section 12 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Sub-section (I) of that section provides that the Local Government may appoint as many persons as it thinks fit, besides the District Magistrate, to be Magistrates of the first, second or third class in any district outside the presidency-towns. And then it goes on: "the Local Government or the District Magistrate, subject to the control of the Local Government, may, from time to time, define local areas within which such persons may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may respectively be invested under this Code. " So that under that section the Local Government can appoint a Magistrate in a particular district, and then the Local Government or the District Magistrate may carve up the district and define particular areas within which particular Magistrates are to exercise their functions. If the matter stood there it might be suggested that where the District Magistrate has made an order directing that a particular Magistrate is to exercise jurisdiction within a particular area, the jurisdiction of that Magistrate is confined to that area and does not in future extend to the rest of the district. But then comes Sub-section (2) which says : " Except as otherwise provided by such definitions the jurisdiction and powers of such persons shall extend throughout such district. " That seems to me to be a saving clause which prevents the mere carving up of the district into areas amongst Magistrates from having the effect of depriving Magistrates of jurisdiction in the whole district, unless the order denning the areas so provides. It is obvious to my mind that the mere definition of areas cannot be taken as a provision excluding jurisdiction in the rest of the district, for if it did, Sub-section (2) would be meaningless. I think the sub-section clearly requires some provision excluding jurisdiction in the rest of the district, which is either express or must be inferred by necessary implication. Now in the present case,, on October 15, 1934, the Local Government appointed the Magistrate whose jurisdiction is at present in question, Khan Bahadur M. N. Mehta, to be an Honorary Magistrate in the Poona district, and conferred on him the magisterial powers therein mentioned, those powers being first class powers and additional powers (inter alia) under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. So that there is no doubt that under that notification Khan Bahadur Mehta would have jurisdiction to deal with this case in the Poona district, The District Magistrate, Poona, by an order dated January 27, 1935, defined the areas in which certain Magistrates were to exercise jurisdiction and directed that Khan Bahadur Mehta was to deal with certain cases in Poona Cantonment. But there is nothing in that order of the District Magistrate which either expressly or by necessary implication confines the jurisdiction of Khan Bahadur Mehta to the particular area in which he is directed to exercise jurisdiction. That being so, I think that, under Sub-section (2) of Section 12, Khan Bahadur Mehta continued to have jurisdiction in the whole of the Poona district, and that, with the consent of the District Magistrate, or the Additional District Magistrate, he was competent to try any case arising in the Poona District. Dr. Ambedkar referred us to a case (Kunj Behari Lai v. Lanua (1920) 19 A. L. J. 77), That is not an authorised report. But if the view of the Court in that case was that the mere act of a District Magistrate in carving up a district and allotting a particular area to a particular Magistrate had the effect of restricting the jurisdiction of that Magistrate to that area and depriving him of jurisdiction over the rest of the district, I can only say, with great respect to the Court, that I do not agree with the decision. That, in my opinion, is not the proper construction of Section 12 of the Code.
(3.) THERE is, in my opinion, no other ground on which we can interfere in revision, and therefore the application must be dismissed. .;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.