JUDGMENT H.G. Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J. - The facts of the matter out of which this application in revision has arisen are shortly as follows:--The three applicants were charged u/s 325, Indian Penal Code. Applicants Nos. 1 and 3 were sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 100 fine, and applicant No. 2 to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The particular place where the offence was alleged to have been committed was then in British India, but by virtue of a notification of the Government of India certain territory, including the place where the alleged offence was committed, has been constituted an independent native state. The applicants appealed from the conviction to the learned Sessions Judge prior to the constitution of the native state, as already mentioned. Before, however, the appeal came on for hearing, the transfer of the territory had been actually carried into effect. The learned Sessions Judge, thereupon, by an order, dated the 8th April, 1911, returned the memorandum of appeal to the applicants for presentation in the proper court in the Benares State, holding that in the events that had happened, he had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The present application is for the revision of this order. In our opinion the learned Sessions Judge is wrong. The offence was committed in British India, the appeal was presented to the proper court, the appellants are at present confined in a jail in British India. Under these circumstances we consider that the learned Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The learned Sessions Judge says, "it" (that is, the Court of Sessions Judge of Mirzapur) "is no longer a court of appeal for which persons convicted of offences committed outside British India can ordinarily come." The learned Sessions Judge has overlooked the fact that the alleged offence in the present case was committed in British India. We do not think that the mere fact that the particular locality has ceased to be British India before the appeal has been determined, takes away the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge. We accordingly allow the application, and set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge with directions to re-admit the appeal and proceed to hear the same.