Judgment Brishketu Saran Sinha, J. This application in revision by an order dated 6th January, 1982, has been referred to a Division Bench and that is how the matter has come up before us. The question that falls for consideration is whether an appeal from the order of conviction passed in case No. 1505 of 1981 by Shri H.N. Prasad, Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna, would lie before the Sessions Judge of Aurangabad or Patna. 2. The relevant facts are that the Special Judicial Magistrate, Transport, in the aforesaid case convicted the petitioner under various sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, sentenced him to pay fines under the different counts in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 90 days. 3. On 24th July, 1981, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, in-charge Transport, seized a vehicle bearing No. BRZ 2592, which was a station wagon, being driven by the petitioner on Daudnagar Road and found it carrying 50 persons although the ,eating capacity was 25 only. It was also alleged that the said vehicle did not have papers like complaint book, road permit etc. The Deputy Superintendent of Police apprehended the petitioner and produced him before Shri H.N. Prasad, Judicial Magistrate at Aurangabad, who by the impugned order dated 24th July, 1981, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions judge, Aurangabad, who dismissed it in limine by his order dated 25th August, 1981, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 1981, stating therein that the appeal would lie before the Sessions judge at Patna, and not before him at Aurangabad. 4. By a notification No. 20A dated 22nd January, 1981, in exercise of the powers conferred in sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the High Court has conferred powers on various officers as Judicial Magistrates of Second class to try summarily cases under the Act, referred to in the notification. By this notification Shri H.N. Prasad, Deputy Collector, at present Roadways Magistrate, Patna, was vested with the powers for trying all offences relating to the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, in all the districts of Bihar, It will, therefore, be seen that although by the notification Shri Prasad, with regard to offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, has been vested with the powers to try offences committed in all the districts of Bihar, he is basically a Roadways Magistrate at Patna. Section 14(3) of the Code reads thus: "Where the local jurisdiction of a Magistrate, appointed under section 11 or section 13 or section 18, extends to an area beyond the district, or the metropolitan area, as the case may be, in which he ordinarily holds Court, any reference in this Code to the Court of Session, Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, shall, in relation to such Magistrate, throughout the area within his local jurisdiction, be construed unless the context otherwise requires, as a reference to the Court of Session, Chief Judicial Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, exercising jurisdiction in relation to the said district or metropolitan area." 5. Therefore, the question in the instant case is whether under this provision the Sessions Judge of Patna or Aurangabad would be the appellate court. Before, interpreting this provisions it would be relevant to consider some other provisions of Chapter II of the Code. Under section 6, criminal courts are courts of session, Judicial Magistrates of the first class, Judicial Magistrates of the second class and Executive Magistrates and under lection 7, sessions division in every State shall be a district or districts. Under section 11, in every district there shall be as many courts of judicial magistrates of the first class and second class as the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, by, notification specify and under section 13(1) the High Court, on request by the Central or State Government so to do, may confer upon any person who holds any post under the Government all or any of the powers conferred or conferrable by or under the Code on a judicial magistrate of the first class or of the second class in respect to particular cases or to particular classes of cases in any local area. Under section 15 every Chief judicial Magistrate shall be' subordinate to a Sessions Judge and every other Judicial magistrate shall, subject to the general control of the Sessions Judge, be subordinate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. By State amendment sub• section (3) has been added in Bihar to section 15 under which any judicial magistrate exercising powers over any local area extending beyond the district in which he holds his court, shall be subordinate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate of the said district and reference in this Code to the Sessions Judge shall be deemed to be reference to the Sessions Judge of that district where be bolds his Court. 6. Bearing the aforesaid provisions in mind it has now to be seen whether in the instant case the appeal would lie to the Sessions Judge at Patna where Shri H.N. Prasad has his headquarters or before the Sessions Judge of Aurangabad in which district also he has jurisdiction to try all cases of Motor Vehicles Act, and Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The question involved is one of first impression. Sub-section (3) of section 15 does not appear to be very happily worded as the prime question which falls for consideration is the meaning or the word 'said district' at the end of the sub-section. It, however appears that the purpose of notification under section 13(1) is not only to empower a particular Magistrate to try and dispose of particular types of cases speedily and uniformly but also takes into account the convenience of the parties before it. Offences normally under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, being not very serious in nature, it would be to the advantage to the offender to be tried in the district in which he commits the offence and with that object the aforesaid notification has been issued by the High Court under which Shri Prasad was empowered to go to every district and try the relevant cases there if construction of sub-section (3) of section 14 otherwise permits it is reasonable to hold that after such conviction if the aggrieved party wishes to go up in appeal, it would be convenient for him to file an appeal before the Sessions Judge of that very district. Even on a plain reading of this sub-section it appeals that the word 'said district' in the last part of the sub section refers to 'any area beyond the district' in which the Magistrate ordinarily holds court Therefore, reference to the said district in the subsection could mean the district which is in an area beyond the district in which the Magistrate ordio1rily holds court I am therefore, of the view that in the instant case the appeal did lie before the learned Session Judge, Aurangabad and he was in error in holding that the appeal should have been filed before the Sessions Judge, Patna. 7. Normally this case would have been sent back to the lower appellate court again for hearing on merits but as the appellate order is more than one year old and it is a case triable in summary manner, it is more convenient to dispose of the Case itself on merits. We have seen the records of the case. Although the order of the trial court shows that the accused orally accepted all the different charges under the different sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, from the examination of the accused it appears that the learned Magistrate asked him only one question to the effect that he was found driving his vehicle without papers besides something which is not legible on which the answer was that the petitioner accepted the guilt it is obvious, therefore, that although there were six charges against him, he was not asked about all those individual charges including One of overloading. In the circumstances, it has to be held that the petitioner's convictions and sentences are not in accordance with law and must be set aside. 8. In the result, this application is allowed and the convictions and sentences passed against the petitioner are set aside. The fines, if realised, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Application Allowed.