Order.- In this petition, the order dated 10th July, 1975, passed by the in-charge Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kundgol in Crl. Case No. 144 of 1975 taking cognizance of the offences under sections 353 and 506 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, is challenged on the ground that the in-charge 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kundgol, during the months of June and July, 1975. He was granted commuted leave for 26 days, with effect from 16th June, 1975 up to 11th July, 1975. The High Court issued the notification, dated 26th June, 1975 placing the II Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, III Court, Hubli, in charge of the current duties of the Court of the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kundgol, during the leave period of Sri S.S. Shrikande. On 10th July, 1975 respondent Virabhadrappa Parappa Angadi, filed a complaint before the said in-charge Magistrate, Kundgol, alleging that the petitioners had committed offences under sections 352 and 506 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. The in-charge Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and issued process against the petitioners. That is the older in question. 3. Shri B. V. Deshpande, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, urged that the II Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, III Court, Hubli, was by virtue of the notification issued by the High Court on 26th June, 1975, placed in charge of only the current duties of the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 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 in-charge Magistrate without 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, III Court, Hubli, in charge of the Court of the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class at Kundgol. His contention in other words is that the notification in question is a notification issued by the High Court under section 14 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The notification in question reads as follows: "No. G.O. 382 of 1975 High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, dated 26th June, 1975, NOTIFICATION Shri S. S. Shrikande, Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kundgol is granted commuted leave for 26 days with effect from 16th June, 1975 to 11th July, 1975 (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 Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class III Court, Hubli, has been placed in -charge of the current duties of the Court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kundgol during the above leave period in addition to his own duties. Shri S.S. Shrikande, Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, 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 Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, III Court, Hubli, was placed in charge of the current duties of the Court of the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kundgol, during the leave period of Sri S.S. Shrikande and that too, in addition to his own duties. P.S. Bhat Registrar’" A plain reading of this notification discloses that the II Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, III Court, Hubli, was placed in charge of the current duties of the Court of the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, 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 Shri S. Indudhar, the II Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, III Court, Hubli, was exercising powers under the Code. In this connection, it is worthwhile noticing sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They read as follows: "9. (4) The Sessions Judge of one Sessions division may be appointed by the High Court to be also an Additional Sessions Judge of another division, and in such case he 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 Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, or, if there be no Additional or Assistant 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-section (1) of section 9 of the Code, the State Government established a Court of Session for every sessions division. Under sub-section (2) of section 9, the High Court appoints the Sessions Judge to preside over such Court of Sessions. Under sub-section (3) of section 9, the High Court appoints Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges also if necessary to exercise jurisdiction of such a Court of Session. Similarly, under section 11 (1), the State Government established after consultation with the High Court, as many Courts of Judicial Magistrates of the First Class etc. as is deemed necessary. Under subsection (2) of section 11, the High Court appoints the presiding officers, namely Judicial Magistrates, First Class, of such Courts. But, there are no provisions similar to sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 9 in section 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. as is deemed necessary. Under subsection (2) of section 11, the High Court appoints the presiding officers, namely Judicial Magistrates, First Class, of such Courts. But, there are no provisions similar to sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 9 in section 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under sub-section (4) of section 9, the High Court gets power to appoint a Sessions Judge of one division as an Additional Sessions Judge of another division also. In the absence of such a power under section 11, the High Court cannot appoint a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, of one Court as Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class of another Court. The contention of Shri K.A. Swami, in this connection that because under sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court has power to appoint a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, of a Court established under sub-section (1) of section 11, it must be deemed that the High Court has also the power to appoint the same Magistrate as an Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, of another Court, cannot be countenanced. 7. Under sub-section (5) of section 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 section 11 or section 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 Shri 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 Shri Swami’s contention that the notification in question should be considered as having been issued by the High Court under section 14 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 14 (1) of the Code reads as follows: “14. 8. Now I proceed to deal with Shri Swami’s contention that the notification in question should be considered as having been issued by the High Court under section 14 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 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 section 11 or under section 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 Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Third Court, Hubli, was to exercise his powers. In fact, the local limits of the areas within which the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kundgol and the Second Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Third Court, Hubli, were exercising their powers have been left in tact by the notification as the notification specifically states that the Second Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Third Court, Hubli, was to be in-charge of the current duties of the Court of the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 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-sections (4) and (5) of section 9, but in regard to Judicial Magistrate, Frist 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-sections (4) and (5) of section 9 are not found in section 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. Hence, I hold that the Second Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Third Court, Hubli, did not at all have, in spite 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 arised in the local limits of the areas within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kundgol. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the order, dated 10th July, 1975 passed by the in-charge Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kundgol, in Crl. Case No. 144 of 1975 is set aside. It is open to the regularly appointed Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kundgol to proceed in the matters as if the complaint of the complainant has been for the first time presented before him.