- (1.) THE Mining Engineer Jaipur had filed a complaint against Mohan Lal Agrawal petitioner for commission of an offence under s. 21 (1) (2) (4) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1956 read with Rule 48 of the Mines and Minerals Commission Rules, 1947 in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Kotputli. On behalf of the petitioner an objection was raised before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that he had no jurisdiction to try the case because it was only the Judicial Magistrate and not an Executive Magistrate who could try the case. THE Sub-Divisional Magistrate upheld the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner and by his order dated February 27, 1978, dismissed the case. THE State of Rajasthan preferred a revision petition in the court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur and it was urged before the Sessions Judge that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kotputli ought not to have dismissed the complaint and should have taken recourse to S. 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and should have returned the complaint for presentation to the proper court with an endorsement to that effect. THE Sessions Judge, accepted this argument advanced on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and by his order dated December 16, 1980 ordered that the case may be sent to the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur, District Jaipur for trial in accordance with law. This order of the Sessiens Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur dated December 16, 1980 is stated to be contrary to law and without jurisdiction by the petitioner Mohan Lal Agrawal by this revision petition before this court.
(2.) I have heard Shri A. K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Kamla Jain, the learned Public Prosecutor. Mrs. Kamla Jain, frankly conceded that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kotputli had no jurisdiction to try this case for the simple reason that by virtue of rule of construction of reference laid down by Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, any reference in the Code without any qualifying words, to a Magistrate shall be construed, unless the context otherwise requires, as a reference to a Judicial Magistrate. What the learned Public Prosecutor contended is that if the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kotputli was not competent to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint presented before him, he should have returned it for presentation to the proper court with an endorsement to that effect under Section 201 (a) of the Code. The argument may seem to be attractive but, in my view, it has no force in it. In Section 201 (a) also the word "magistrate" is used without any qualifying words and, therefore, according to the Rule of construction of reference provided in Section 3 of the Code, it shall be construed as a reference to a Judicial Magistrate. It is only if a complaint is made to a Judicial Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the offence, that under Section 201 (a) of the Code, the Magistrate has to return the complaint for presentation to the proper court with an endorsement to that effect. The one of competency contemplated by Section 201 of the Code may be due to (a) the Magistrate being not empowered under Section 190 to take cognizance or (b) want of territorial jurisdiction or (c) want of previous sanction under S. 132 read with S. 340 or under some special or local law or (d) to the Magistrate not being qualified to try under Schedule I or to commit for trial. This Section does not apply at all to a case when the complaint is presented to an Executive Magistrate. In this view of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District was entirely wrong in ordering that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kotputli shall send the case to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, for trial in accordance with law. I, therefore, allow this revision and quash the order of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District. Jaipur dated December 16, 1980, and restore the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kotputli, dated February 27, 1978. .;