JUDGMENT Lodge, J. - This rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Rajshahi and on the opposite party to show cause why proceedings pending in the Court of Mr. D. N. Chakravarti should not be quashed. The material facts are as follows: A petition of complaint was filed by one Rahim Sadar in the Court of the Sub-divisional Officer of Naogaon against six persons. The allegation was that the wife of the complainant was a girl named Rupjan Bibi aged 15 or 16 years. She had been enticed away by two persons named Malo and Ramo and taken to Khagra in the district of Purnes where she was sold to Radharani and Jamat Ali for the sum of Rs. 100. When the complainant came to hear of the occurrence, he gave a missing information at the police station and subsequently sent some friends to Khagra to bring back his wife. These friends found the girl Rupjan in the custody of Radharani and Jamat Ali; and the latter did not allow the girl to be taken away. On these allegations a warrant without bail was issued against four persons-Radharani, Jamat Ali, Malo and Ramo under Ss. 372, 373 and 498, Penal Code. Only Radharani and Jamat Ali were arrested. The other accused persons are said to be still absconding. Radharani and Jamat Ali were produced before the Magistrate and evidence was recorded. All the prosecution witnesses with the exception of an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police were examined and the learned Magistrate applied his mind to the question of framing a charge. He then passed the following order : 21st September 1945. Examined 8 more witnesses. It now appears that the only change with which the present two accused can be charged is under S. 378, Penal Code. But that offence was committed in the jurisdiction of Purnea District in different province, the accused being resident there and having made the alleged purchase also there. The question now is whether these two accused can be tried here. To 8th October 1945 for arguments of both parties as required by them. 2. On 8th October the accused filed a petition objecting to the jurisdiction of the Naogaon Court. The case was then adjourned to 8th November to consider the question of jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate then passed the following order : 8. 11. 45. To 8th October 1945 for arguments of both parties as required by them. 2. On 8th October the accused filed a petition objecting to the jurisdiction of the Naogaon Court. The case was then adjourned to 8th November to consider the question of jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate then passed the following order : 8. 11. 45. Examined one A. S. I. Prosecution declines to adduce any further evidence. Heard arguments. Following the case reported to 46 All 138 and 21 A. L. J. 912 Badlu Shah and Others Vs. Emperor, AIR 1924 All 454 and also in accordance with the provision of S. 531, Criminal P. C. I hold that the case should be tried here. Accordingly I frame charges under Ss. 373 and 368, Penal Code, against both the accused. 3. As a consequence of this order the present rule was issued. It has been contended before us that the learned Magistrate at Naogaon had no jurisdiction to try the present two petitioners, Radharani and Jamat Ali. We have examined the evidence in this case. There is not one word of evidence on record as yet to show that the petitioners had any knowledge that the woman Rupjan had been kidnapped or abducted. The learned Magistrate was perfectly right in his order of 21st September 1945 that the only charge which could properly be framed against the petitioners was a charge under S. 373, Penal Code, and that he had no jurisdiction to try that charge. It seems to us apparent that the framing of the charge under S. 368 was little more than a device to justify the learned Magistrate in assuming jurisdiction in this case and that the evidence on record justifies a charge under S. 373 and scarcely justifies a charge under S. 368, Penal Code. 4. It is clear that the Purnea Court has jurisdiction to try the offence under S. 373, Penal Code, and also the charge under S. 368, if framed. The Naogaon Court undoubtedly has jurisdiction to try the offence under S. 368 if the evidence justifies the framing of a charge under that section. It is even then open to question whether the Naogaon Court has any jurisdiction to try the charge under S. 373. Mr. Chakravarty opposing this rule has adopted the argument of the learned Magistrate and argued that S. 531, Criminal P. C., gives the Magistrate jurisdiction. It is even then open to question whether the Naogaon Court has any jurisdiction to try the charge under S. 373. Mr. Chakravarty opposing this rule has adopted the argument of the learned Magistrate and argued that S. 531, Criminal P. C., gives the Magistrate jurisdiction. We do not read S. 531 in that sense. In our opinion S. 531 cures irregular proceedings wrongly held in a wrong local area unless it appears that the error as to territorial jurisdiction has in fact occasioned a failure of justice. Section 531 does not entitle a Magistrate to proceed with a trial in the wrong local area with his eyes open to the fact that he has no territorial jurisdiction. It does not in fact confer a jurisdiction on the Magistrate. 5. In our opinion the proper Court in which this case should be tried is the Court in the district of Purnea where the offence alleged to have been committed by these two petitioners was committed. The Naogaon Court has apparently no jurisdiction and we must, therefore, quash the proceedings in that Court. The rule is accordingly made absolute. The proceedings in the Court at Naogaon are quashed. The present petitioners will execute a bond to appear in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer at Kishenganj when called upon to do so. This bond will remain in force for a period of three months only. Ellis, J. 6. I agree.