K. L. SHRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under S. 482 of the Cr. P. C. , 1973 (for short 'the Code') for an order for return of the complaint from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Jawad, District Mandsaur (M. P.) for presentation to proper Court. ( 2 ) THE circumstances giving rise to the petition are these : The non-applicant 2 Mst. Lilabai, on 30-9-78, filed a complaint against the present petitioner and the non-applicants 3 to 8 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Jawad alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant No. 3 Ashok, the marriage having taken place in 1974. The non-applicant 3 has married the non-applicant No. 4 Kamlabai and the petitioner and the other non-applicants have aided him in the said crime of bigamy punishable under S. 494 of the I. P. C. The complainant was examined on the aforesaid date and after completion of inquiry under S. 202 of the Code, on 30-11-78, issued of process was ultimately ordered on 20-2-1979. ( 3 ) ON being served with the process, the petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the trial Court which negatived it by its order dt. 12-6-1982 and in revision that order has been confirmed and hence this petition. ( 4 ) THE petitioner on 10-4-1980 had filed an application to the effect that he does not reside within the jurisdiction of the Court and the complaint does not disclose that the offence was committed within the said jurisdiction and, therefore, as the Court has no jurisdiction to try the case the complaint be dismissed. ( 5 ) AFTER the amendment inserted by Act No. 45 of 1978 (18-12-78) the provision in S. 182 (2) of the Code reads thus : s. 182 (2) : Any offence punishable under S. 494 or S. 495 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the offender last resided with his or her spouse by the first marriage or the wife by the first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of the offence. (amended portion is underlined ). (amended portion is underlined ). ( 6 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the complaint was filed and the complainant was examined, the learned trial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain it and to take cognizance of the case and the amendment in S. 182 of the Code is not retrospective. He urges that the objection as to jurisdiction having been raised before the commencement of trial, resort to S. 462 of the Code, cannot be had. The contention of the learned counsel for the non-applicants is that the amendment in S. 182 of the Code being procedural, is retrospective and would apply even to pending cases. ( 7 ) THE question for consideration is as to what relief the petitioner is entitled to. ( 8 ) AS a general rule alteration in the form of procedure is retrospective in character unless there are some good reasons not to treat it as such. Where the alteration impairs or imperils substantive right, it is not retrospective unless it says so either expressly or by necessary implication. In this connection the Full Bench decision in Sitaram v. State of M. P. , 1979 Jab LJ 696 is pertinent. ( 9 ) IT may be pointed out that a person accused of the commission of offence has no vested right to be tried by a particular Court or procedure. In the decision in New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Mishra, AIR 1976 SC 237 it has been pointed out that change in law as to forum is merely a change of adjectival or procedural law and not of substantive law. The decision relates to Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. ( 10 ) AN offence under S. 494, I. P. C. is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class. Therefore, there was no lack of inherent jurisdiction in the Judicial Magistrate First Class Jawad to take cognizance and to try the offence. As pointed out in Patny Transport (P.) Ltd. Jabalpur's case 1966 0 MPLJ 459 want of inherent jurisdiction cannot be waived. The learned trial Magistrate, on the date of presentation of the Complaint, had the competency as respects power but had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain it. As pointed out in Patny Transport (P.) Ltd. Jabalpur's case 1966 0 MPLJ 459 want of inherent jurisdiction cannot be waived. The learned trial Magistrate, on the date of presentation of the Complaint, had the competency as respects power but had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain it. However, in view of the amendment in S. 182 of the Code, before ordering issue of process, the Magistrate stood vested with territorial jurisdiction to try the offence in question. ( 11 ) FURTHER as pointed out in the decision in Mangaldas v. Maharashtra State, AIR 1966 SC 128 even where a trial is held at a wrong place, it is not vitiated where the accused is not found to have been prejudiced thereby. In this connection S. 462 of the Code is pertinent. On the same principle the entertaining of complaint and the examination of the complainant and the witnesses by the learned trial Magistrate cannot be held to be vitiated. ( 12 ) IT is well settled that the inherent powers under S. 482 of the Code are to be exercised sparingly in extraordinary circumstances only in order to achieve the purposes therein specified. The circumstances of the present case do not warrant interference under those powers more so when territorial jurisdiction too stands vested and a long period of about seven years has already lapsed after the filing of the complaint. It may, however, be pointed out that in the circumstances of the case, any application under S. 205 of the Code would merit sympathetic consideration. ( 13 ) IN the ultimate analysis, the petition, for the foregoing reasons, fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .