JUDGMENT 1. - By the orders dated 30th June, 1982 and 5th September, 1985 passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, a legal controversy involved in this revision petition has been referred to the regular criminal Division Bench and, as such, this petition has been placed before us. 2. Briefly, the legal point involved is as to whether on conviction by the Railways Magistrate while holding Mobile Court at Baran, though exercising jurisdiction over more than one Distriction an appeal will lie to the Additional Sessions Judge, Baran having jurisdiction over the area where the offence was committed or to the Sessions Judge, Ajmer to whom the Railways Magistrate is subordinate? 3. Stated in Succinct, the relevant facts are that the petitioner was prosecuted for carrying passengers in his Roadways Bus No. RRM/6025 without ticket at town Thana, District Kota. The accused petitioner made a confession before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer on the spot, who by the judgment dated 14th December, 1978, found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Sec. 8 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Service (Prevention of ticketless Travel) Act, 1975 and imposed a fine of Rs. 150/- in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. 4. Aggrieved by this said judgment, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 8/1979, before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 1, Baran, who by his impugned judgment dated 8th April, 1980 held that in view of the provisions of Sec. 14(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, he had no jurisdiction to hear the said appeal and directed the petitioner to file appeal before the competent Court. Hence, this revision petition. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and carefully perused the relevant record. It will suffice to mention that this controversy already stands resolved and concluded by the judgment dated 15th February, 1984, passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench in D.B. Cr. Reference Mp. 1/1981, State of Rajasthan v. Babu Khan and D.B. Cr. It will suffice to mention that this controversy already stands resolved and concluded by the judgment dated 15th February, 1984, passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench in D.B. Cr. Reference Mp. 1/1981, State of Rajasthan v. Babu Khan and D.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 5/1980, Bharat Singh v. State of Rajasthan , where after interpreting the provisions of Sec. 14(3) and Sec. 177, Cr.PC, it has been held that on account of use of the words "unless context otherwise requires" appearing in Sec. 14(3), Cr.PC where the local jurisdiction of a magistrate appointed under Sec. 11 extends to an area beyond the district in which he ordinarily holds the court, any reference in this Code to the Court of Session, shall, in relation to such magistrate, throughout the area within his local jurisdiction, be construed as a reference to the Court of Session within whose local jurisdiction, the offence was committed." 6. The Division Bench has further held that the principle of law enunciated in State of Rajasthan v. Ramkishan, (1981 RLW 141) is no more a good law. 7. Therefore, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court which has been consistently followed in Ram Niranjan v. State Road Transport Corporation (1985 Cr.LR (Raj.) 191) and Ghanshyam Acharya v. State of Rajasthan, (1990 RCC 364) , and in Radhesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 699/1994, decided on 19th May, 1995), the Addl. Sessions Judge, No.1, Baran, in whose territorial jurisdiction, the offence in the case on hand, was committed, had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the conviction of the petitioner. In our considered opinion, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has committed an illegality in not exercising the jurisdiction vested In him. Therefore, the impugned order dated 9th April, 1980 cannot be sustained. 8. In the result, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 8th April, 1980 is set aside and the case is remitted back to the learned Sessions Judge, Baran with the direction that he should decide the appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction. 9. The parties are directed to appear before him on 28th April, 1996. The record of the lower court be also sent back.Appeal allowed. *******