- (1.) THE petitioners complaint is that the Sessions Judge erred in law in directing the CJM to hear the case which according to him is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. I am not satisfied that there is merit in this contention.
(2.) THE offence involved in this case is under Section 494 R.P.C. for which the sentence provided is 7 years. The learned Sessions Judge directed the CJM to try the accused relying upon Section 30 Cr. P. C, which reads as follows: -
(3.) NOTWITHSTANDING anything contained in Section 28 or 29 a Chief Judicial Magistrate shall have the powers to try as a Judl. Magistrate all offences not punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.  It is clear that the learned Sessions Judge was right in making this direction. The Section contains a non - obstante clause. All the requirements of this Section are satisfied in the order passed by the Sessions Judge. The petitionerâ„¢s counsel submits that the sentence provided under Section 494 R.P.C. is not only seven years but with fine and as such Section 494 R.P.C, is outside Section 30 Cr. P. C, I am not impressed with this submission either. Section 30 deals with only sentence of imprisonment and not fine.;