MOHINI KAPUR, J. - (1.) THIS petition relates to the jurisdiction of a Sessions Judge in revision against the order passed by the Roadways Magistrate. The facts of the case can be mentioned in brief, only to the extent they are relevant for deciding this petition. The petitioner was a-conductor on bus No. 9112 when it was checked between Chaumahela and Jhalawar on January 29th 1980 and 22 passengers were found to be without ticket. The petitioner was tried by the Roadways Magistrate, Ajmer and found guilty. He preferred a revision petition before the Sessions Judge Jhalawar, but he, by his order dated March 30th, 1989 dismissed the revision saying that he had no jurisdiction to hear the revision as according to him the conviction order had been passed by the Judicial Magistrate (Roadways ). Ajmer and the decision had also been pronounced in the open court at Ajmer.
(2.) IN this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar had jurisdiction to hear the revision as the offence had been committed within his jurisdiction and he should not have refused to exercise his jurisdiction merely because the Judicial Magistrate (Roadways) had his head quarters at Ajmer. The above point was referred to a Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan v, Babu Khan (l) and Bharat Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2 ). After referring to the relevant provisions namely Sections 14 and 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was held that the Sessions Judge within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed had jurisdiction to try the case. In this case, the Judicial Magistrate (Railways) Kota ordinarily held his court at Kota but two cases came up before him which were triable by the Sessions Judge of other district and he had to decide to which Sessions Judge he should commit the cases, In one of the case, the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge Bharatpur and in another case within the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. Hence, the cases were committed to these two Sessions Judges and not to the Sessions Judge, Kota where the Magistrate was having his place of sitting. Sections 14 and 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be reproduced below:- "14 : Local jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate : (1) Subject to the control of the High Court the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, from time to time, define the local limits of the area within which the Magistrate appointed under S. 11 or under S. 73 may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may respectively be invested under this Code: (Provided that the court of a Special Judicial Magistrate may hold its sitting at any place within the local area for which it is established.) (2) Except as otherwise provided by such definition, the jurisdiction and powers of every such Magistrate shall extend through the district. (3) 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 matropolitan 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 Matropolitan Magistrate, shall in relation to such Magistrate, throughout the area within his local jurisdiction, he construed, unless the context otherwise required 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" 177. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. " It is sub-clause (3) of Section 14 which provides as to what will be the meaning of reference to a Court of Sessions or Chief Judicial Magistrate in relation to a Magistrate and normally it is the Sessions Judge or the Chief Judicial Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the Magistrate has local jurisdiction. However, referring to the words "unless the context otherwise requires" it was held that these words would mean the Sessions Court within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed and the situation that the Magistrate had his local jurisdiction within the jurisdiction of another Sessions Judge has no effect. The above decision has been followed in Ram Niranjan vs. R. S. R. T. C. (3) where the Roadwas Magistrate posted at Hanumangarh having jurisdiction in another Sessions division, checked the bus within the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. It was held that appeal against the order of the Roadways Magistrate could be heard by the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, in whose jurisdiction the offence was committed.
(3.) THE law is settled in this respect and the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar wrongly held that he has no jurisdiction to hear the revision on the ground that the decision was that of the Judicial Magistrate (Roadways) Ajmer. THE offence was committed within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar and he is competent to hear the revision against the order of the Roadways Magistrate with head quarters at Ajmer, having jurisdiction which falls within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. This petition is accepted. The order of the learned Sessions Judge, 9 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Sessions decide the revision petition of the petitioner on merits. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar on August 22nd, 1990, The record of the case be sent back immediately to the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. .;