Judgment :- 1. The common question that arises in these two revision petitions is as to which one of the two courts of Sessions is the proper appellate forum for a case tried and convicted by a First Class Magistrate having jurisdiction over both Sessions Divisions. The Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode, which has been invested with the powers of a First Class Magistrate for the trial of offences under the labour laws committed within the districts of Kozhikode, Cannanore and Palghat convicted the petitioner for an offence under S.102(2) of the Factories Act. The Tribunal is located at Kozhikode within the territorial jurisdiction of the Kozhikode Sessions judge while the offence was committed at Payyannur which lies within the territorial jurisdiction of Tellicherry Sessions Judge. Against the above conviction the revision petitioner filed an appeal before the Tellicherry Sessions Court which was returned on the ground that the proper appellate forum is the Sessions Court which has jurisdiction over the place where the Tribunal is located. Thereupon the petitioner filed the appeal before the Kozhikode Sessions Court This appeal also was returned on the ground that the appeal should be filed in the Sessions Court which has jurisdiction over the place where the offence was committed Criminal R.P. 66 is from the order of the Sessions Judge Kozhikode and Criminal R.P. 67 is from the order of the Sessions Judge, Tellicherry. 2. The question that arises for decision is whether it is the location of the trial court or the place where the offence was committed that should determine the venue of appeal. Now it is common ground that as the Factories Act is silent regarding the appellate forum for convictions under the Act, the venue of appeal is to be determined by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, regarding appeals from the orders of a Magistrate of the First Class. 3. Two opposing views were placed before me In Valia Ambu Poduval v. Emperor (ILR XXX Mad. 3. Two opposing views were placed before me In Valia Ambu Poduval v. Emperor (ILR XXX Mad. 136) the Madras High Court took the view that as S.408 Criminal Procedure Code which deals with appeals from the orders of a First Class Magistrate says merely that appeals lie to the Sessions Court without any further explanatory words, the venue of appeal may be determined with reference to S.435 which deals with the revisional jurisdiction of courts and which lays down that a Sessions Judge may call for and examine the records of any inferior criminal court situate within his jurisdiction. It was further held that the word 'situate' in the section means "where the court ordinarily sits" and as such an appeal from a conviction by a Magistrate lies to the Sessions Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the Magistrate's Court is located irrespective of the place where the offence was committed. 4. On the other hand in Lalta Prasad v. State (AIR. 1952 All. 70) it was held that it is the location of the offence and not of the trial Magistrate's Court that determines the venue of appeal. It was observed therein: "S. 177, Criminal P. C., provides that: "Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed". It also has reference to the court and not to the place of sitting. The various sections dealing with appeals in Chap. XXXI Criminal P.C., just mention that certain orders from certain courts will be appealable to such and such a superior court and make no reference to the place of sitting of the court. A superior court, be it of the District Magistrate or the Sessions Judge has also territorial jurisdiction & is competent to hear appeals with respect to cases arising within its territorial jurisdiction. It was not therefore necessary to mention in this chapter that the appeals will go to the court of such District Magistrates and Sessions Judges as have jurisdiction. A superior court, be it of the District Magistrate or the Sessions Judge has also territorial jurisdiction & is competent to hear appeals with respect to cases arising within its territorial jurisdiction. It was not therefore necessary to mention in this chapter that the appeals will go to the court of such District Magistrates and Sessions Judges as have jurisdiction. The Code contemplated that trial courts will have territorial jurisdiction over the cases tried and that appeals from such courts would go to the District Magistrates and Sessions Judges within whose jurisdiction those courts exercised jurisdiction and the cases decided by them arose." The Court further held: "The subordination of a Special Magistrate to the Sessions Judge is on the principle that he will be subordinate to a particular Sessions Judge with respect to the cases of that Sessions division and not with respect to the cases of another Sessions Division if he as a special Magistrate has jurisdiction over several Sessions divisions". 5. I must say with respect that I am inclined to agree with the latter view. An appeal from a case tried by a Magistrate having jurisdiction over more than one Sessions Divisions, therefore lies to that Sessions Court within the jurisdiction of which the offence was committed. If the location of the Magistrate's Court were the criterion to determine the venue of appeal then it would mean that the appellate forum would change as and when the place of sitting of the former is changed. 6. I therefore hold that this appeal has to be heard by the Sessions Judge, Tellicherry within whose jurisdiction the case arose.