Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1975 DIGILAW 164 (KAR)

VENKANGOUDA RANGANGOUDA v. VEERABHADRAPPA PARAPPA

1975-10-28

M.S.NESARGI

body1975
( 1 ) IN this petition, the order dl. 10-7-1975, passed by the incharge Judicial magistrate, First Class, Kundgol in Crlcase 144 of 1975 taking cognizance of the offences under Ss. 352 and 506 read with S. 34 IPC is challenged on the ground that the incharge Judicial Magistrate had no power to entertain the complaint and take cognizance of the offences. ( 2 ) THE necessary facts may be briefly narrated as follows: Sri S. S. Shrikande was the Munsiff and JMFC, Kundgol, during the months of June and July 1975. He was granted commuted leave for 26 days, with effect from 16-6-75 upto 11-7-75. The High Court issued the notification dated 26th June 1975, placing the II Addl Munsiff and JMFC, III Court, Hubli, in charge of the current duties of the Court of the Munsiff and JMFC, kundgol, during the leave period of Sri S. S. Shrikande. On 10-7-75 respondent virabhadrappa Parappa Angadi, filed a complaint before the said incharge magistrate, Kundgol, alleging that the petitioners had committed offences under Ss. 352 and 506 read with S. 34 IPC. The incharge Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and issued process against the petitioners. This is the order in question. ( 3 ) SRI B. V. Deshpande, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, urged that the II Additional Munsiff and J. M. F. C. , III court, Hubli, was by virtue of the notification issued by the High Court on 26th June 1975, placed incharge of only the current duties of the Munsiff and JMFC, Kundgol, hence he had no power to discharge statutory functions of the Magistrate of the Court at Kundgol and as such, he could not have, in law, entertained the complaint filed by the respondent, taken cognizance of the offences and issued process. He, on this basis argued that the order in question has been passed by the incharge Magistrate with out any power, and therefore it has to be quashed. ( 4 ) SHRI K A Swami, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, urged that entertaining of complaints and taking cognizance of offences also fall within the ambit of the words 'current duties' and as such, the order in question is valid in law. ( 4 ) SHRI K A Swami, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, urged that entertaining of complaints and taking cognizance of offences also fall within the ambit of the words 'current duties' and as such, the order in question is valid in law. He nextly urged that when the High court, by its notification dated 26th June 1975 placed the II Additional munsiff and J. M. F. C. , III Court, Hubli, in charge of the Court of the munsiff and J. M. F. C. at Kundgol, may be for discharging the current duties only, it must be understood that by the said notification, the local limits of the areas within which the II Additional Munsiff and J. M. F. C. III Court, Hubli, exercised his powers were re-defined so as to include the local limits of the areas falling within the jurisdiction of the Court of the j. M. F. C. at Kundgol. His contention in other words is that the notification in question is a notification issued by the High Court under Sec. 11 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 5 ) THE notification in question reads as follows:"no. GO 382/71 High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore dated: 26th June 1975 notification shri S. S. Shrikande, Munsiff and J. M. F. C, Kurudgol is granted commuted leave for 26 days with effect from 16-6-75 to 11-7-75 (both days inclusive) with permission to prefix the holidays on 14th and 15th June 1975 and suffix general holidays on 12th and 13th July 1975. The II Addl. Munsiff and J. M. F. C. III Court, Hubli, hast been placed in charge of the current duties of the Court of Munsiff and j. M. F. C. . Kundgol during the above leave period in addition to his own duties. Shri S. S. "shrikande, Munsiff and J. M. F. C. , Kundgol is re-posted to the post on expiry of the leave. By order of the High Court, sd - P. S. Bhat, registrar. "a plain reading of this notification discloses that the II Addl Munsiff and jmfc, III Court, Hubli was placed in charge of the current duties of the court of the Munsiff and JMFC, Kundgol, during the leave period of sri S. S. Shrikande and that too, in addition to his own duties. "a plain reading of this notification discloses that the II Addl Munsiff and jmfc, III Court, Hubli was placed in charge of the current duties of the court of the Munsiff and JMFC, Kundgol, during the leave period of sri S. S. Shrikande and that too, in addition to his own duties. It has nothing to do with defining of the local limits of the areas within which sri S. Indudhar, the II Addl Munsiff and JMFC, III Court, Hubli, was exercising powers under the Code. In this connection, it is worthwhile noticing sub-secs (4) and (5) of S 9 of the Crlpc they read as follows :" 9 (4) The Sessions Judge of one Sessions division may be appointed by the High Court to be also an Addl Sessions Judge of another division, and in such case be may sit for the disposal of cases at such place or places in the other division as the High Court may direct. (5) Where the office of the Sessions Judge is vacant, the High court may make arrangements for the disposal of any urgent application which is, or may be made or pending before such Court of Session by an Addl or Asst Sessions Judge, or, if there be no Addl or Asst sessions Judge by a Chief Judicial Magistrate, in the Sessions division; and every such Judge or Magistrate shall have jurisdiction to deal with any such application. " ( 6 ) BY virtue of sub-sec (1) of S. 9 of the Code, the State Govt established a Court of Session for every Sessions division. Under sub-sec (2) of s. 9, the- High Court appoints the Session Judge to preside over such court of Session. Under sub-sec (3) of S. 9, the High Court appoints Addl sessions Judges and Asst Sessions Judges also if necessary to exercise juridiction of such a Court oi Session. Similarly, under S. 11 (1), the State govt established after consultation with the High Court, as many Courts cf Judicial Magistrates of the first class etc, is is deemed necessary. Under sub-sec (2) of S. 11, the High Court appoints the presiding officers, namely, judicial Magistrates, first class, of such Courts. But, there are no provisions similar to sub-secs (4) and (5) of S. 9 in S. 11 of the Crlpc. Under sub-sec (2) of S. 11, the High Court appoints the presiding officers, namely, judicial Magistrates, first class, of such Courts. But, there are no provisions similar to sub-secs (4) and (5) of S. 9 in S. 11 of the Crlpc. Under sub-sec (4) of S. 9, the High Court gets power to appoint a Sessions Judge of one division as an Addl Sessions Judge of another division also. In the absence of such a power under S. 11, the High Court cannot appoint a judicial Magistrate, First Class, of one Court as Addl Judicial Magistrate, first Class, of another Court. The contention of Sri K. A. Swami in this connection that because under sub-sec (2) of S. 11 of the Crlpc, the High court has power to appoint a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, of a Court established under sub-sec (1) of S. 11, it must be deemed that the High court has also the power to appoint- the same Magistrate as an Addl Judicial magistrtae, First Class, of another Court, cannot be countenanceed. ( 7 ) UNDER sub-sec (5) of S. 9 of the Code, the High Court has power to make arrangements for disposal of any urgent application where the office of the Sessions Judge falls. vacant. In the absence of a similar provision in s. 11 or S. 14 of the Code it is not possible to hold that the High Court can make similar arrangements for disposal of urgent applications where the office of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, falls vacant. Whether the High, Court can make arrangements in regard to current administrative duties only by placing a. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, appointed to another court in charge of such a Court need not be, in my opinion, gone into. Hence the contention of Sri Swami that 'current duties' include entertaining of complaints and of taking cognizance of offences also does not survive. ( 8 ) NOW I proceed to deal with Sri Swami's contention that the notification in question should be considered as having been issued by the high Court under S. 14 (1) of the Crlpc. Hence the contention of Sri Swami that 'current duties' include entertaining of complaints and of taking cognizance of offences also does not survive. ( 8 ) NOW I proceed to deal with Sri Swami's contention that the notification in question should be considered as having been issued by the high Court under S. 14 (1) of the Crlpc. Sec. 14 (1) of the Code reads as follows :" 14 (1) Subject to the control of the High Court, the Chief Judicial magistrate may, from time to time, define the local limits of the areas within which the Magistrates appointed under S. 11 or under s. 13 may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may respectively be invested under this Code. "as has been already pointed out, the notification does not at all deal with the topic of defining of the local limits of the areas within which the ii Addl Munsiff and JMFC III Court, Hubli, was to exercise his powers. In fact, the local limits of the areas within which the Munsiff and JMFC, kundgol and the II Addl Munsiff and JMFC, III Court, Hubli, were exercising their power have been left in tact by the notification as the notification specifically states that the II Addl Munsiff and JMFC III Court, hubli, was to be in charge of the current duties of the Court of the Munsiff and JMFC; Kundgol. Therefore, it is not possible to accede to the contention of Sri Swami. ( 9 ) THE Chief Judicial Magistrate of a district has jurisdiction throughout the district. Therefore, under the contingencies contemplated by sub-sec (4) and (5) of S. 9, but in regard to Judicial Magistrate, First Class, the Chief Judicial Magistrate would have power to attend to the work of the concerned Courts. This clearly is the reason why provisions similar to sub-secs (4) and (5) of S 9 are not found in S. 11 of the Crlpc. ( 10 ) HENCE, I hold that the II Addl Munsiff and JMFC III Court, hubli, did not at all have, inspite of the notification issued by this High court as cited above, the necessary power to take cognizance of offences arising out of the local limits of the areas falling within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kundgol. It is undisputed that the offences in question had arisen in the local limits of the area within the jurisdiction of the Court of the JMFC, Kundgol. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the order d/10-7-1975 passed by the incharge judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kundgol, in Crl Case 144 of 1975 is set aside. It is open to the regularly appointed Judicial Magistrate, First Class, kundgol, to proceed in the matter as if the complaint of the complainant has been for the first time presented before him. --- *** --- .