CHANDRA PRAKASH, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the order, dated March 28, 1972, of Shri K. N. Mehra, Magistrate Ist Class, Dehradun, convicting the appellant Neki Ram Gupta under section 124-A I. P. C. and sentencing him to one years's R. I.
(2.) THE appellant along with one Radha Krishna Kukreti was tried under section 124-A I. P. C. on the complaint of the Inspcctor Incharge Kotwali, Dehradun, in the Court of the Additioral District Magistrate (Judicial) Dehradun. Both the appellant Neki Ram Gupta and Radha Krishna Kukreti pleaded not guilty. After taking evidence of the prosecution and the defence the Court below found no case against Radha Krishna Kukreti. The appellant was, however, found guilty and he was sent-enced as noted above. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has now come up in appeal before me. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the appellant that the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), who tried the case, was not competent to try it. t have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State at length. After going through the record and giving the matter my anxious consideration I am of the opinion that the Court below was not competent to try the case giving rise to this appeal.
(3.) ACCORDING to column 8 of Schedule II at the end of the Criminal Procedure Code, a case under section 124-A I.P.C. can be tried by a Court of Session, Chief presidency Magistrate or District Magistrate or Magistrate of the first Class Specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf. It is undisputed that the present case has not been tried either by a Court of Session ora Chief Presidency Magistrate or tne-District Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first Class Specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf. It is, therefore, urged on behalf of the appellant fhat the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), who tried the case, was not competent to try it and the whole proceedings before him must be quashed for want of jurisdiction. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the State that the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) attracted the connotation of the term 'District Magis­trate'as given under the section 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 10 of the Code is as follows :- "10. District Magistrate. (1) In every district outside the presidency towns the State Government shall appoint a Magistrate of the first class who shall be called to the District Magistrate. (2) The State Government may appoint any Magistrate of the first Class to be an Addi­tional District Magistrate and such Additional District Magistrate shall have all or any of the powers of a District Magistrate under this Code or under any other law for the time being in force, as the State Government may direct. (3) For the purposes of sections 192, sub-section (1) and 528, sub-sections (2) and (3) such Additional District Magistrate shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Magistrate." ;