JUDGMENT 1. This is a reference u/s 432, Criminal Procedure Code, made by the Third Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta. 2. The accused persons are charged with attempting to cheat the officer-in-charge of the Currency Office, Bombay, by claiming payment of halves of currency notes for 400 rupees. The declaration signed in support of the claim was posted in Calcutta, and the case for the prosecution is that the attempt at cheating, if there was one, was made in Calcutta. The learned Magistrate took a different view, and the Public Prosecutor supported him: thereupon the Magistrate ordered the records of the case to be sent to Bombay and called on the accused to give bail to appear in Bombay. The accused moved this Court against the Magistrate's order, and we set it aside, on the ground that the Magistrate had not all the materials before him, and we pointed out what should ensue from a finding, that the Magistrate bad no jurisdiction to try the case. 3. The learned Magistrate has row completed the enquiry and he adheres to his view that the offences were committed in Bombay. He now asks whether he can send the accused with the records of the case to the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Bombay for the trial of the offences, u/s 186 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. In my judgment on the earlier occasion I indicated my, views on the. subject, and further consideration does not lead me, to change them. The wording of the section itself shows, in my opinion, that, it relates to offences which the Magistrate knows from the outset to have been committed, if at all, outside the lmits of his jurisdiction. The marginal note makes the meaning dealer, and still more the references to the section in Schedule III and Section 529 of the Code The same conclusion is reached by examining sections that precede and follow. Yet another line of reasoning is to. ask why the power conferred by Section 186, is not one of the ordinary powers even of a First Class Magistrate outside Calcutta. 5. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding, that our answer to the learned Magistrate's question must be in the negative. 6. Yet another line of reasoning is to. ask why the power conferred by Section 186, is not one of the ordinary powers even of a First Class Magistrate outside Calcutta. 5. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding, that our answer to the learned Magistrate's question must be in the negative. 6. The learned Pleader for the accused has argued before us that the offences, if any, were committed in Calcutta, and that the case ought to be disposed of in Calcutta, and he has urged us to tell the Magistrate that that is our opinion. 7. Althoughwe can see no doubt or ground for doubt as to the Court in which the case should be tried, in deference to the learned Magistrates doubt we decide u/s 185, Criminal Procedure, Code, that the offences alleged, shall be tried by the Court of the Third Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta.