K.B. Sarivastava, J.
1. This revision arises out of proceedings under Section 107, Code of Criminal Procedure. The opposite party Piarey Lai instituted proceedings under Section 107,, Code, of Criminal -Procedure against the Petitioner Ram Lal. in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Biswan, in the district of Sitapur. The parties reside at Buddhi-purwa hamlet of Ataura, Police Station Thangaon in that district. Admittedly, Ataura village falls within the territorial .jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Sidhauli. in that district and not within the limits of the jurisdiction of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Biswan. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Biswan. therefore, submitted a report to the District Magistrate for the transfer of the case from his Court to that of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sidhauli. The District Magistrate, however, ordered that there was no necessity for a transfer and he was specially authorising hitn (the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Biswan,) to dispose of the matter himself. The petitioner Ram Lai thereupon filed criminal revi-before the Sessions Judge, Sitapur 'ismissed it. It is in these circum-s. that Ram Lai has come in revision to this Court.
2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that proceed--ings under Section 107, Code of Criminal Procedure, could have been taken orilv before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sidhauli and not before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Biswan and the proceedings started by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Biswan were, therefore, ab initio void. Section 107(1) says that whenever a Presidency Magistrate, District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the 1st Class is informed that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity ... the Magistrate, if in his opinion there is sufficiaMjgground for proceeding may, ...require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond... for keeping the peace... Sub-section (2) of Section 107 provides the forum before which such proceedings can be started. It says that proceedings may be taken before any Magistrate empowered to proceed under Sub-section (1) when either . the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within the local limits of such Magistrate's jurisdiction or there is within such limits a person who is likely to commit the breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity etc, etc. That being so, it is quite clear that the various Magistrates mentioned in Sub-section (1) may commence proceedings provided either the place where the breach of the peace is apprehended is within the local limits of his jurisdiction or there is within such limits a Derson, who, is likely to commit._ a breach of the peace. It is admitted that in the instant case, neither the place where the breach of peace was apprehended nor the parties were within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Biswan. That be-ins so. undoubtedly, he was not competent to start proceedings in his capacity as a Sub-Divisional Magistrate. This, however, did not debar him from initiating or continuing the proceedings as a Magistrate of the first class. The Magistrates empowered under Sub-section (1) of Section 107 to require any person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond ... etc. for keeping the peace .are either a Presidency Magistrate, or a District Magistrate, or a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or a Magistrate of the first class. It is not necessary that such proceedings must be commenced before a Sub-Divisional Magistrate. These can be commenced also before a Magistrate of the first #ass and there is no denying the fact that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was also a Magistrate of the first class, A Sub-Divisional Magistrate may have his local limits confined to the Sub-division and he can only function within that subdivision if he is acting as a Sub-Divisional Magistrate. However as a Magistrate of the first class simpliciter, his territorial jurisdiction extends to the entire district. This will be evident from a perusal of Section 12. Sub-section (1) of Section 12 states that the State Government may appoint as many persons as it thinks fit, besides the District Magistrate, to be Magistrates of the first ... class in any district ...; and the State Government or the District Magistrate, subject to the control of the State Government may. from time to time, define local areas within which such persons may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may be respectively invested -under the Code. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 lays down that except as otherwise provided by such definition, the jurisdiction and powers of such persons shall extend throughout such district.' Hence, where the jurisdiction of a Magistrate is not defined under Sub-section (1), his jurisdiction will extend throughout the district. There is a general consensus of opinion that the mere definition of areas of jurisdiction or the appointment of a Magistrate to a certain sub-division cannot be taken as a provision excluding the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to the rest of the district and that in the absence of some provision expressly or by necessary implication excluding such jurisdiction, the Magistrate must be held to have jurisdiction throughout the dis- trick Thus the mere fact that a Magistrate is placed in Charge of a Sub-Division under Section 13, is, in- the absence of anything to the contrary, no eround for holding that his jurisdiction over the rest of the district is excluded. The petitioner has been unable to show that there was any order passed by the State Government or subject to its control, by the District Magistrate, expressly or implied-ly taking away the .-jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate from the rest of the district. In the absence of such an order, it must be taken that his jurisdiction extended to the entire district. See Sarat Chunder Roy v. Bepin Chandra Roy, (1902) ILR 29 Cal 389; Golam Rahaman Khan v. Kali Pada Manna AIR 1932 Cal 064 : 33 Cri LJ 858; Ghulam Hussain v. Sajawal Shah. AIR 1933 Lah 143; Gulabrao Laxmanrao Chand-gude v. Emperor AIR 1935 Bom 409 : 37 Cri LJ 514; Baliram Nagorap Ek-bote v. Dawalatsingh Gulab Singh AIR 1945 Nag 56 : 46 Cri LJ 654; State Government Madhya Pradesh v. Kishna.-das Nima AIR 1955 Nag 189 : 1955 Cri LJ 1084. Radhey v. Girwar ; Pari-chan Singh v. Heman Singh, : AIR1961Pat94 and Om Prakash v. State : AIR1962All157 .
3. This revision has, therefore, no substance and is dismissed.