1. In my opinion, this application must be dismissed. We have already held that an application upon a complaint asking us to take proceedings against certain persons, one of whom appears to be not in India at all and the others appear to be either Indian subjects or else residing within the original jurisdiction of this Court, does not lie under the clause which Mr. Banerji insists applies to it, namely, Clause 29, Letters Patent. I do not want again to go into the question of the right of this Court to deal with breaches of peace in France or the conditions under which the Courts in British India sometimes have to deal with cases of Indian subjects in respect of such breaches. In order that there may be no misunderstanding in the matter I would point out three things: The ordinary original criminal jurisdiction of this Court is given by Clause 22, Letters Patent. The extra ordinary original criminal jurisdiction is given by Clause 24 Letters Patent, and that gives jurisdiction over persons residing in places within the jurisdiction of any Court now subject to the superintendence of the High Court. That is the only clause in the Letters Patent which purports to give extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction. There is however a clause-Clause 29 which gives the High Court power where a criminal case or appeal is in any other Court to transfer it to a Court otherwise competent to investigate it, notwithstanding that it belongs to the jurisdiction of the Court in which it is. That is a power of transfer. If the High Court takes a case from the Sessions Judge of Khulna and gives it to the Sessions Judge of Midnapore, it may be said that to that extent the Sessions Judge of Midnapore is getting an extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction; and the same will be true if the High Court transfers a case to itself. In that sense of the expression apparently the word is used in Rule 2 of the chapter of the Original Side Rules of this Court which has been referred to:
Applications for the exercise of the extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction conferred on this Court by Clauses 24 and 29, Letters Patent shall be heard and disposed of at the appellate side. But cases directed to be tried by the High Court will be tried at the Crown side.
2. In my judgment, Section 29, Letters Patent, which is the one to which Mr. Banerji keeps on recurring has not the meaning which Mr. Banerji is contending for. It appears to me that the second half of that rule is addressed to the same subject matter as the first half.
3. That being so, I can only repeat that the application made to us under that clause must be dismissed.
4. It is for the second time and I hope that I have sufficiently shown that the matter has not been considered without care.
5. I agree.