Patna High Court
Parichhan Singh vs Heman Singh And Anr. on 11 May, 1960
Equivalent citations: AIR1961PAT94, 1961CRILJ304, AIR 1961 PATNA 94
ORDER Anant Singh, J.
1. The only point for consideration in this criminal revision application is, whether the learned Subdivisonal Magistrate of Muzaffarpur has jurisdiction to try the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the land: in dispute, being survey plot No. 950 of khata No. 919 of village Hirdopatti, is alleged to have situated within the jurisdiction of Runi Saidpur police station which is under the jurisdiction of Sitamarhi subdivision within the same district of Muzaffarpur.
2. It appears that the learned Subdivisional Magistrate of MuzafYarpur had drawn up a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to survey plot No. 950 of khata No. 919 of village Hirdopatti, which is said to lie within the jurisdiction of Sitamarhi subdivision of the same district. The proceeding was being tried by another Magistrate, Sri G. C. P. Sinha, holding first class powers, who, by his order dated the 19th October 1959, has held that the land in dispute fell in Katra Police Station which is under the jurisdiction of the Sadar Subdivision of Muzaffarpur. He has further observed that it was of little consequence whether the case was decided in one subdivision or another in the same district. The learned Magistrate has also observed that the parties admitted before him that the disputed land lies in village Bhadai under the Katra police station, which is within the jurisdiction of Sadar Subdivision of Muzaffarpur.
3. It has been challenged on behalf of the petitioner that no such admission was made on his behalf that the land in question situates within the jurisdiction of Katra police station, and that, in fact, the land appertains to village Hirdopatti which is under the Runi Saidpur police station within the subdivision of Sitamarhi. In support of this contention, reliance was placed upon the voters' list of the last Legislative Assembly election, the Certified copy of Union Register and some other documents which would show that the plot in question falls in tola Hirdopatti of village Dhobha which is in Runi Saidpur police station under the jurisdiction of Sitamarhi subdivision.
4. The objection regarding jurisdiction was not taken up at the initial stage. It seems to have been taken up when the proceeding was nearing completion. There is, however, no merit in the contention.
5. Section 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorises the State Government to appoint as many Magistrates as necessary in any district, and the State Government or the District Magistrate, subject to the control of the State Government, is authorised to define local areas within which such persons may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may respectively be invested under the Code. Sub-section (2) of this section provides: "Except as otherwise provided by such definition, the jurisdiction and powers of such persons shall extend throughout such district". It follows that the jurisdiction and powers of a Magistrate of a district extend throughout such district, unless otherwise the jurisdiction has been specially limited to a particular area.
6. Reliance, however, has been placed on behalf of the petitioner on the case of Kunj Behari Lal v. Lanua, AIR 1921 All 123, decided by the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court sitting singly. The facts of that case are not at all attracted. There, the learned Subdivisional Magistrate had returned a petition of complaint at the initial stage for its presentation to the proper court as he had no jurisdiction which was confined to his subdivision, and it was held that the Subdivisional Magistrate took the right view when he had stated that he having been placed in charge of a subdivision, his jurisdiction was confined to that subdivision, and he could not take cognizance of offences beyond this limit.
7. Reliance on behalf of the petitioner was also placed on another case of Syed Alli Gulam Alli v. Emperor, AIR 1938 Nag 448, wherein it was held that the jurisdiction of a Subdivisional Magistrate is confined to his own subdivision. This case had relied upon the case of Ramsaran Pande v. Iswar Pande, AIR 1935 Pat 131 (2), of this Court. But the facts of none of these cases are applicable to the present case. In the Patna case, referred to above, it was a question of jurisdiction between two districts, and in the Nagpur case, the jurisdiction of the Subdivisional Magistrate seems to have been confined to his own subdivision.
In the instant case, nothing has been shown to me that the jurisdiction and powers of the Muzaffarpur Subdivisional Magistrate and of the Magistrate to whom the case has been transferred for trial, have been limited only to their own subdivision. There is a clear authority of our own High Court in Rameshwar Pathak v. Baijnath Rai, 16 Pat LT 576 : (AIR 1935 Pat 436), for the proposition that the jurisdiction of a Magistrate extends throughout his district unless it is curtailed otherwise by any specific order of the State Government or the District Magistrate with the concurrence of the State Government.
8. It was held by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar v. The State, AIR 1952 Gal 91, that "where there is nothing to indicate that there was any specified local area within the district within which a Magistrate in the district is to exercise his powers, the jurisdiction and powers of the Magistrate extend throughout the district".
9. The Nagpur High Court itself in a Division Bench case of State Government, M. P. v. Krishnadas Nima, AIR 1955 Nag 189, held:
"The mere definition of areas under distribution memo cannot be taken as a provision excluding jurisdiction of the rest of the district, for if it did, Sub-section (2) of Section 12 would have 110 meaning. Sub-section (2) clearly requires some provision excluding jurisdiction in the rest of the district which is either express or must be inferred by necessary implication. The power of the District Magistrate to limit the territorial jurisdiction of a Magistrate is exercisable only with the concurrence of the State Government".
10. The petitioner has not been able to show that the jurisdiction and powers of the learned Subdivision Magistrate to whom the case was transferred for disposal to try cases arising within the district have been, in any manner, otherwise curtailed.
In this view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner on the question of jurisdiction is unfounded. The application is, therefore, dismissed.