Maya Shanker Pandey vs State of U.P.

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 Ist Class Eastern Railway, Moghal Sarai, District Varanasi u/s 113/122 of the Indian Railways Act and Section 332, I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo one year''s R.I. u/s 332, I.P.C., one month''s R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 150 u/s 122, Indian Railways Act and to pay a penalty of Rs. 11.55 u/s 113 of the Indian Railways Act.

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 Ist Class of the remaining Districts of Varanasi Zone (Railway) and when he tries a case of a District other than Varanasi, he functions as Judicial Magistrate Ist Class of that District and this is so irrespective of his head quarter or the place of trial. Consequently, the revisionist filed another appeal before the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur with the application u/s 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 Session 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 cannot 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 Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1978 read as follows:

Where the local jurisdiction of a Magistrate appointed u/s 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 u/s 11, 13 or 18 of the Code and he exercises local jurisdiction to an area beyond a particular District, then the Court of Sessions in relation to such Magistrate shall be construed to be the Sessions 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 Session Judge, Varanasi was not disposed of on merit, 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 u/s 5 of the Limitation on the ground that another Sessions 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.

The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Ghazipur cannot 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.