Skip to content


Kasim Ali (Molla) Vs. Mohammad Tafazzal HossaIn and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1929Cal204
AppellantKasim Ali (Molla)
RespondentMohammad Tafazzal HossaIn and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....mirkutia group of khas mahal and also within the serajgunge sub-division. beading that report the learned additional district magistrate of dacca passed the following order in this case:i think in the circumstances that i have no option but to act on this report and find that both the sub-divisional officer of manickgunge and the district magistrate of dacca are without jurisdiction. i, therefore, quash this proceeding being without jurisdiction and direct the opposite party to complain to, or move the sub-divisional magistrates of serajgunge in the matter.2. it is against this order that the present rule is directed.3. having heard the parties and perused the relevant papers on the record we are of opinion that the order complained of is open at least to three objections. in the first.....
Judgment:

1. This rule relates to a case which arose out of an occurrence which, according to the police report and the case for the prosecution, took place in a certain Char called Char Gobindopur in the Sub-Division of Manickgunge in the District of Dacca. According to the defence the place of the alleged occurrence lies in Agsimulia which, the defence alleged, is within the District of Pabna. On the case being started in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer of Manickgunge an objection was taken on behalf of the defence to the jurisdiction of that Court. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate being of opinion that there was considerable uncertainty as to the local area where the alleged offence was committed made an order under Section 182(1), Criminal P.C., that the trial of the case be held at Manickgunge. The accused thereupon moved the Additional District Magistrate of Dacca who asked for a report from the Sub-Divisional Officer of Serajgunge within the District of Pabna as to whether the place of occurrence, of which a description was supplied to him, lay within the District of Pabna or within the District of Dacca. The Sub-Divisional Officer of Serajgunge thereupon sent a report to the Additional District Magistrate of Dacca in which he stated that his Khas Mahal Officer knew the place of occurrence well and that Agsimulia Gap Part 3 was within the Mirkutia group of khas mahal and also within the Serajgunge sub-division. Beading that report the learned Additional District Magistrate of Dacca passed the following order in this case:

I think in the circumstances that I have no option but to act on this report and find that both the Sub-Divisional Officer of Manickgunge and the District Magistrate of Dacca are without jurisdiction. I, therefore, quash this proceeding being without jurisdiction and direct the opposite party to complain to, or move the Sub-Divisional Magistrates of Serajgunge in the matter.

2. It is against this order that the present rule is directed.

3. Having heard the parties and perused the relevant papers on the record we are of opinion that the order complained of is open at least to three objections. In the first place it is apparent that the learned Additional District Magistrate was acting under his revisional powers. No application for transfer of the case could possibly have been entertainable by him by reason of the fact that what was urged on behalf of the defence was that a Court altogether outside the district had jurisdiction to deal with it. If the learned Additional District Magistrate was dealing with the matter in the exercise of his revisional powers he could not have under the law quashed the proceedings but if he agreed with the contention urged on behalf of the defence the only course open to him was to make a reference to this Court so that this Court might pass final orders in the matter.! Nextly it appears that in dealing with this matter the learned Additional District Magistrate did not give any notice to the, complainant and in point of fact the complainant was not heard against the contention that was urged on behalf of the defence. Lastly the learned Additional District Magistrate did not come to any proper finding of his own on the question of the local jurisdiction of the Court at Manickgunge but acted upon the report made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Serajgunge whose report again was based upon some information supplied to that officer by some Khas Mahal Officer under him. We are of opinion that in order to arrive at a proper conclusion on the question of jurisdiction it would be necessary for the learned Additional District Magistrate to give notice to the complainant and to bring on the record such materials as both the parties may desire to adduce in connexion with this question, and then if he comes to the conclusion that contention urged on behalf of the defence has been made out, to make a reference to this Court for passing such orders.

4. In dealing with this matter the learned Additional District Magistrate will have to consider also the provisions of Section 182, Criminal P.C., under which the learned trial Court appears to have acted. The rule is made absolute in the terms indicated above. The order of the learned Additional District Magistrate complained of in the rule is set aside and the case sent back to him to he dealt with in accordance with the observations made above.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //