Judgment On a complaint filed by the petitioner, the accused-opposite party was placed on trial to answer a charge under S. 500 read with S. 333 of the Bengal Municipal Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Arambagh. Before the learned Magistrate an application was filed by the accused opposite party stating that the Court of the Judicial Magistrate was not competent to try the case and as such the proceeding was liable to be quashed. The learned Magistrate, relying upon the definition of ‘Magistrate’ in the Act, allowed the said application and released the accused under S. 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Hence this Rule at the instance of the petitioner. 2. Although the learned Magistrate has taken great pains to write a laboured judgment the point involved is a short and simple one and does not merit a detailed discussion. The approach of the learned Magistrate to the point involved was erroneous and his entire effort was an exercise in futility. 3. Section 500 of the Act says that contravention of nay provision of the Act mentioned in the table given therein is an offence and describes the punishment which may be imposed for such offence. In the instant case the offence is contravention of S. 333 of the Act for making some unathourised construction and punishment for such offence, as provided in S. 500, is a fine which may extend to Rs. 200/- The Act nowhere lays down the Court by which such offence will be tried nor the procedure for such trial. Section 2 (n) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) defines “offence” to mean any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force and includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be made order S.20 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871. As the act or mission now under consideration is punishable under the Act is answers to the definition of “offence” under the Code. Section 4(2) of the Code provides that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions; but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulation the manner or place of investigating inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Section 4(2) of the Code provides that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions; but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulation the manner or place of investigating inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Section 5 of the Code is a saving section. It provides that the Code shall not affect any special or local law for the time being in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred or any special form of procedure, prescribed by any other law for the time being in force. The Code therefore enjoins that when the offence is one under a special or local law but there is no enactment prescribing any procedure for dealing with the offence, the procedure laid down therein must follow. Section 26(b)(ii) of the Code provides that any offence under any law except the Indian Penal Code shall when any court is mentioned in this behalf in such law, be tried by such court and when no Court is mentioned may be tried by the High Court or any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to the triable. Section 3(1) of the Code in its turn states that any reference in the Code without any qualifying word, to a Magistrate shall be construed. Unless the context otherwise requires, in relation to an area outside a metropolitan area, as a reference to a Judicial Magistrate. 4. From all these provisions of the Code, the principle that can be deduced is that where a statue other than the Penal Code creates an offence but mentions no criminal court to try it and prescribes no procedure for dealing with the offence, the offence shall be tried or enquired into by the Criminal Court mentioned in the First Schedule of the Code and in accordance with the Provisions of the Code. 5. As indicated earlier S.500 of the Bengal Municipal Act does not specifically state which court will try the offence mentioned in the table therein, nor does it prescribe a procedure. IT necessarily follows that the offence under S. 500 of the Act is to be tried in accordance with the Provisions of the Code. 5. As indicated earlier S.500 of the Bengal Municipal Act does not specifically state which court will try the offence mentioned in the table therein, nor does it prescribe a procedure. IT necessarily follows that the offence under S. 500 of the Act is to be tried in accordance with the Provisions of the Code. The inescapable conclusion therefore is, it is the Court of the Judicial Magistrate which can try offence under S. 500 of the Act. 6. In the result the application succeeds and the Rule is made absolute. The impugned order is hereby set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein. 7. Before parting with this judgment. I wish to place on record that as the definition of ‘Magistrate’ under S. 3(54) of the Act, was not required to be considered for disposing of this Rule. I shall not be taken to have expressed any opinion about other provisions of the Act. Wherein the words ‘Magistrate’ of the 1st Class’ find place. Rule made absolute.