Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 312 (KER)

State v. Francis Mannaly

1999-07-15

K.A.MOHAMMED SHAFI

body1999
Judgment :- K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J. This R.C. is registered suo mote against the order passed by the Sessions Court, Palakkad dated 11.10.1993 in Crl. Appeal No. 123/93 pending before that court. 2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram was appointed as the Special Court for trial of mark list cases. C.C. 21/85 was tried and disposed of by the Special Court from Thiruvananthapuram against the two accused alleging that they have fabricated fake marklist and obtained admission for higher education on the basis of that fake mark list. The Special Court, Thiruvananthapuram disposed of that case by judgment dated 26.8.1993. Against that judgment Crl. Appeal No. 123/93 was preferred before the Sessions Court, Palakkad. When the records were called for by the Sessions Court, Palakkad from the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-V (Special Court for trial of mark list cases), Thiruvananthapuram the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram sought from this Court by letter dated 15.11.1993 as to whether the appeal could be preferred before the Court of Session, Palakkad instead of Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram. This Court sought the remarks of the Sessions Judge, Palakkad through the administrative side by order dated 22.11.1993. By that time as the Sessions Court, Palakkad entertained doubt regarding maintainability of the appeal in that court, the matter was heard and the considered order dated 11.10.1993 was passed by the Sessions Court, holding that the Court of Session, Palakkad has got jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and therefore, the appeal before that court is maintainable. The Sessions Judge, Palakkad sent his remark dated 29.11.1993 along with a copy of that order to this Court. Therefore, this Court found that the matter can be considered only on judicial side and directed to register a Crl. R. C. suo mote against that order passed by the Sessions Court, Palakkad. Accordingly this R.C. is registered suo motu against the order dated 11.10.93 passed by the Court of Sessions, Palakkad in Crl. Appeal No. 123/93 and notice was issued to the Public Prosecutor and the accused-appellants. 3. The Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the appellants were heard. 4. Accordingly this R.C. is registered suo motu against the order dated 11.10.93 passed by the Court of Sessions, Palakkad in Crl. Appeal No. 123/93 and notice was issued to the Public Prosecutor and the accused-appellants. 3. The Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the appellants were heard. 4. The counsel for the appellants submitted that sub-s.(3) of S.14 of the Cr.P.C. does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions, Palakkad in this case, though the case was tried and disposed of by the Special Court stationed at Thiruvananthapuram constituted for the purpose of trial and disposal of the mark list cases since at least a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Palakkad as a portion of the conspiracy is alleged to have hatched out by the appellants in Palakkad and the first appellant got admission in Palakkad by virtue of the alleged fake document. 5. The Special Magistrate's Court at Thiruvananthapuram was established for the executive trial of mark list cases under S.11 of the Cr.P.C. with jurisdiction through out Kerala. S.14 of the Crl. P.C. deals with local jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrates which reads as follows: "14. Local jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates:- Subject to the control of the High Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, from time to time, define the local limits to the areas within which the Magistrates appointed under S.11 or under S.13 may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may respectively be invested under this Code: Provided that the Court of a Special Judicial Magistrate may hold its sitting at any place within the local area for which it is established. (2) Except as otherwise provided by such definition, the jurisdiction and powers of every such Magistrate shall extend throughout the district. (2) Except as otherwise provided by such definition, the jurisdiction and powers of every such Magistrate shall extend throughout the district. (3) Where the local jurisdiction of a Magistrate, appointed under S.11 or S.13 or S.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 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." From sub-s.(3) of S.14 of the Cr.P.C. it is clear that where the local jurisdiction of a Magistrate appointed under S.11 or S.13 or S.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 the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Court of Session, Chief Judicial Magistrate or 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. Therefore, it is apparent from the above provision that even if the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate appointed under S.11 or S.13 or S.18 extends beyond the area of the local jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Chief Judicial Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, the Court of Session, Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate exercising jurisdiction over the area where the Special Magistrate ordinarily holds Court, has got jurisdiction over the area in respect of which the Special Magistrate is exercising jurisdiction, even if that area is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Chief Judicial Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, unless the context otherwise requires. 6 ...In this case there is nothing to show that the context otherwise requires and apart from the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram within whose jurisdiction the Special Court for mark list cases is ordinarily holding sitting there is any material indicating that jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court of Sessions, Palakkad or any other Sessions Court to hear and dispose of the appeal in respect of the cases wherein the cause of action is wholly or partly arisen, within their jurisdiction. Nobody has got a case that the Special Magistrate's Court has disposed of the case by holding sitting within the jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Palakkad or at least outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram. Therefore, the only Court of Session which has got jurisdiction to entertain and hear the appeal arising out of the case disposed of by the Special Court, Thiruvananthapuram by holding sitting within the jurisdiction of Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, is the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. 7. The contention raised by the counsel for the appellants that since part of the cause of action alleged in this case has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Palakkad, that Court has got jurisdiction to entertain and hear the appeal preferred against the judgment passed by the Special Court though the judgment is passed by holding sitting in Thiruvananthapuram within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, is not sustainable in view of the express provision contained in sub-s.(3) of S.14 of the Cr.P.C. ousting the jurisdiction of the Court of Session within whose jurisdiction the area coming within the jurisdiction of the Special Magistrate's Court is also included while the Special Court is holding sitting within the territorial jurisdiction of another Court of Session. 8. In support of the contention that the Court of Session, Palakkad has also got jurisdiction to entertain and hear the appeal, even if the Special Magistrate's Court is holding sitting within the territorial jurisdiction of another Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram, the counsel for the appellants relied upon the decision in Jalauddinv. State of Bihar (ILR 1982 Vol. 62 Patna series 689). In that reported case the question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the Patna High Court was whether an appeal against the judgment passed by the Magistrate at Patna on whom the High Court had conferred powers under S.14(3) of the Cr. State of Bihar (ILR 1982 Vol. 62 Patna series 689). In that reported case the question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the Patna High Court was whether an appeal against the judgment passed by the Magistrate at Patna on whom the High Court had conferred powers under S.14(3) of the Cr. P.C. as Judicial Magistrate of Second Class to try cases summarily under the Motor Vehicles Act and Motor Vehicles Taxation Act in all the districts of Bihar while holding sitting at Aurangabad, can be preferred before the Court of Session, Aurangabad or Patna. The Division Bench after elaborate consideration of the matter held that whereby a notification under sub-s.(1) of S.13 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has conferred powers on the Roadways Magistrate with his headquarters at Patna as Judicial Magistrate of Second Class to try summarily under the Motor Vehicles Act and Motor Vehicles Taxation Act in all the districts of Bihar and the said Magistrate, Patna tried the offences and convicted and sentenced the accused at Aurangabad, appeal would lie before the Court of Session, Aurangabad. In that judgment the Division Bench of the Patna High Court has observed as follows: "Even on a plain reading of this sub-section it appears that the word said district' in the last part of the sub-section refers to zany area beyond the district' in which the Magistrate ordinarily holds court. Therefore, reference to the said district in the sub-section would mean the district which is in an area beyond the district in which the Magistrate ordinarily holds court. I am, therefore, of the view that in the instant case the appeal did lie before the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad and he was in error in holding that the appeal should have been filed before the Sessions Judge, Patna." But the above decision is of no avail to the appellants in this case. I am, therefore, of the view that in the instant case the appeal did lie before the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad and he was in error in holding that the appeal should have been filed before the Sessions Judge, Patna." But the above decision is of no avail to the appellants in this case. That decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court has only laid down that if a Special Magistrate exercising jurisdiction conferred on him by the High Court under S.13(1) of the Cr.P.C. throughout the State or in areas comprising of more than one Sessions Division and ordinarily holding Court in a particular Sessions Division disposed of the case by holding Court in another Sessions Division on which it has got jurisdiction, the appeal against the judgment passed by such Magistrate would lie before the Sessions Court within whose jurisdiction he held sitting and disposed of the case. 9. In this case, it is the common case that the Special Magistrate held sitting and disposed of the case within the jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram and not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Palakkad. Therefore, the Sessions Court which has got jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the appeal is the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram and not the Sessions Court, Palakkad. Under the circumstances the finding arrived at by the Sessions Court, Palakkad in this case that the Court of Session, Palakkad has got jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the appeal is illegal and unsustainable. 10. It. has to be noted that C.C. 21/85 on the file of the Special Court for trial of mark list cases, Thiruvananthapuram in respect of the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellants many years prior to the registration of the case, is disposed of by the learned Magistrate on 26.8.1993. The Crl. Appeal 123/93 preferred by the appellants before the Sessions Court, Palakkad is still pending due to the pendency of this R.C. registered by this Court. The Crl. Appeal 123/93 preferred by the appellants before the Sessions Court, Palakkad is still pending due to the pendency of this R.C. registered by this Court. Therefore, I find in view of my finding that the Sessions Court, Palakkad has no jurisdiction to entertain and hear the appeal instead of directing the appellants to take back the memorandum of appeal from the Court of Session, Palakkad and to tile the same before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram which will certainly cause further delay in the disposal of the case, this Court can confer special jurisdiction upon the Court of Session, Palakkad in the instant case, as a special case, with the only requirement of expeditious disposal of this very old appeal. 11. Therefore, I find that the Court of Sessions, Palakkad has no jurisdiction under S.14(3) of the Cr.P.C. to entertain and dispose of the appeal preferred against the judgment passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-V (Special Court for trial of mark list cases), Thiruvananthapuram by holding sitting within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. But as the special case in the interests of justice and for the expeditious disposal of the Crl. Appeal No. 123/93 now pending before the Sessions Court, Palakkad this Court confers Special Jurisdiction on the Sessions Court, Palakkad to hear and dispose of the appeal. The Sessions Court, Palakkad is directed to dispose of the appeal very expeditiously at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of the records from this Court.