M.M.PUNCHHI,J - (1.) THE Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sunam became seision of the dispute between the parties under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. By means of a transfer application, those proceedings were transferred to the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barnala. The latter officer decided the case in favour of the present revision petitioners. The present respondents herein filed a revision petition before the Court of Session, Sangrur and that petition was assigned to the Court of Shri Paramjit Singh Ahluwalia, Additional Sessions Judge (III), Sangrur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upset the order and remitted the case back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barnala requiring him to redecide the matter in accordance with the observations made in his order. The operative part of the order is as follows :- "In view of this provision of law, under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the respondents having admitted in their own application that the petitioners were in actual possession of the land in dispute, and were disposed by them (the respondents), only a day earlier i.e. within months of the date of a preliminary order, the order passed by the learned trial Court for restoring the possession to the respondents is not sustainable under law, when it has not been held by him, that the petitioners were not dispossessed by force or wrongly, and which part of the suit land was under whose possession, out of the respondents. In the absence of this finding of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, I find that he has failed to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court order dated 25.5.1987, directing him to pass a specific order, as to whom the possession of the land has to be restored. Therefore, it is not possible to uphold the impugned order. Hence the same is set aside, by accepting this revision petition, and the case is remanded to the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barnala, for decision of the case fresh, in compliance with the direction of the Hon'ble High Court and according to law. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barnala on 11.8.1988 for further proceedings in this case. File of the lower Court to sent back immediately and that of this court be consigned to records."
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has first urged that Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, had no jurisdiction to decide this matter in revision since there was a Court of an Additional Sessions Judge at Barnala within whose separate jurisdiction by the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barnala. He further urges that the supposition that the case initially was instituted in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sunam, and against whose orders revision petition lay before the Court of Sessions at Sangrur was totally misplaced to vest territorial jurisdiction in the Court of Sessions at Sangrur. On these grounds he urges that the order being without jurisdiction deserves to be knocked off. The argument is totally baseless. Section 462 of the Criminal Procedure Code is a complete answer thereto which is in the following terms :- "462. Proceedings in wrong place. - No finding, sentence or order of any Criminal Court shall be set aside merely on the ground that the inquiry, trial or other proceedings in the course of which it was arrived at or passed, took place in a wrong sessions division, district, sub-division or other local area, unless it appears that such error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice.
(3.) AT this stage it is difficult to displace the impugned order on the basis of lack of territorial jurisdiction in the presence of Section 462 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Nothing has been pointed out to me as to what was the error of jurisdiction and even if it were, what failure of justice has in fact occasioned by assumption of such wrong jurisdiction. So on this ground, the order sought to be revised cannot be upset.;