- (1.) P. K. Jain, J. 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 year's R. I. under Section 332, I. P. C. , one month's 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. 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. " 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 the ground of jurisdiction. As a matter of fact the Sessions Judge, Varanasi while rejecting the appeal, ought to have directed the appellant to file an appeal before competent Court. In any case the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur erroneously held that he could not hear the appeal. The appeal filed before Sessions Judge, Varanasi had actually not been heard on merit hence there was no question of rejection, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation on the ground that another Session Judge cannot rehear it. It should have been disposed of on merit instead of rejecting the same on the ground that in view of the fact that appeal has already been rejected and no question of condoning the delay arises.
(3.) THE order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghazipur can not be sustained. THE revision is allowed. THE impugned order dated 12-12-1989 is set aside and the case is sent back to Sessions Judge, Ghazipur for disposing of it afresh on merit. Revision allowed. .;