ORDER : Sachin Singh Rajput, J. 1. Assailing the legality, validity, correctness and judicial propriety of the order dated 20.07.2009 passed by 3rd Additional Session Judge Bilaspur, CG (for short “ASJ”) in Criminal Appeal No. Unregistered/2009 arising out of order dated 17.12.2008 passed by Magistrate First Class-cum-Commandant, 180 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Taral, Pulvama (Jammu & Kashmir) {for short Magistrate}, in Case No. 16/2008 by which the learned ASJ has dismissed the appeal of the applicant for want of jurisdiction. 2. Case of the applicant in brief is that he was appointed as Sipahi/GD in Central Reserve Police Force on 20.08.2001. The applicant was put under trial for committing an offence under section 10 (m) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 {for short Act of 1949} on the charge that the applicant remained absent from duty from 11.08.2008 to 09.12.2008. Applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for thirteen days vide order dated 17.12.2008 passed by Magistrate in Case No.16/2008. 3. Further case of the applicant is that at the time of commission of offence, he was posted in 180 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, headquarter of which is at Sakri Bilaspur. At the time of commission of offence, the applicant was on active duty at Jammu & Kashmir. Since the headquarter of the applicant is at Bilaspur, he had preferred an appeal under section 374 (4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {for short Cr.P.C.}, in the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.). The appeal was not registered and on hearing on admission, the learned ASJ vide order dated 20.07.2009 dismissed the appeal on the preliminary ground that the order dated 17.12.2008 was passed by Magistrate at Pulvama, Jammu & Kashmir, therefore, the Sessions Court, Bilaspur has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Hence the applicant is before this court in this revision under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. 4. Shri Malay Shrivastava learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned ASJ is patently erroneous, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and bad in law. He further submits that the learned ASJ committed an error of law in rejecting the appeal of the applicant for want of jurisdiction. Shri Malay Shrivastava learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned ASJ is patently erroneous, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and bad in law. He further submits that the learned ASJ committed an error of law in rejecting the appeal of the applicant for want of jurisdiction. He goes on to submit that as per section 2 (a) of the Act of 1949, active duty means duty to restore and preserve order in any local area in the event of any disturbance therein. Further, as per section 8 (3) of the Act of 1949, the force shall be subject to general control and direction of such authority or officer as may be prescribed by the Central Government in this behalf while on active duty outside its headquarter. Therefore, when the applicant was on active duty in Jammu & Kashmir only for the reason that the trial was made at Jammu & Kashmir by the officer under whose supervision the applicant was placed, the jurisdiction of Sessions Court, Bilaspur does not get excluded and the headquarter of the applicant continues to remain at Bilaspur. Section 16 (2) of the Act of 1949 states that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Central Government may invest the Commandant or Assistant Commandant with powers of Magistrate of any class for the purpose of inquiring into or trying an offence committed by a member of force and punishable under this Act. From this Section it is apparent that the commandant who was the authority of the applicant itself is a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, against the order passed by the Commandant of the Battalion, the Central Reserve Police Force, whose headquarter is at Bilaspur, the appellate Jurisdiction may be exercised by the Court at Bilaspur. 5. Replying to this submission of the counsel for the applicant, learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that Section 16 of the Act of 1949 provides for the power and duties conferrable and imposable on members of the force. He submits that the applicant was conferred and imposed with certain powers and duties under the Act of 1949. 5. Replying to this submission of the counsel for the applicant, learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that Section 16 of the Act of 1949 provides for the power and duties conferrable and imposable on members of the force. He submits that the applicant was conferred and imposed with certain powers and duties under the Act of 1949. He further submits that Rule 36 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 speaks about Judicial trial and submits that any offence specified in Section 9 or 10 of the Act of 1949 shall be held in accordance with the Procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (now the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973). Therefore, according to the submission the power of Judicial Magistrate exercised by the Commandant is appealable at the place where such power was exercised. He submits that Section 6 of Cr.P.C. provides for classes of Criminal courts including the Court of Session, and Section 9 of the Cr.P.C. provides for establishment of the Court of Session. He submits that Sections 177 and 178 of the Cr.P.C. provides for ordinary place of inquiry and trial. He further submits that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local Jurisdiction it was committed. He submits that the offence as charged against the applicant was tried by the Judicial Magistrate/Commandant of the Central Reserve Police Force Taral, Pulvama (Jammu & Kashmir) and therefore, against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate/ Commandant is appealable before the Court of Session or the jurisdictional Court at Pulvama (Jammu & Kashmir). He submits that the allegation against the present applicant is that he was on earned leave from 12.07.2008 to 10.08.2008 but he did not return after completion of earned leave and therefore, the aforesaid proceedings were drawn against him. He submits that even assuming that his headquarter was at Bilaspur, CG, there is no nexus with the commission of offence with the territorial Jurisdiction of the Sessions Court Bilaspur and hence the impugned order passed by learned ASJ, is legal as he has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of the applicant against the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class/Commandant at Taral, Pulvama (Jammu & Kashmir). Replying to this submission, it has been submitted by the counsel for the applicant that intention of the Legislature has to be seen because the applicant was fully on active duty in Jammu & Kashmir but his headquarter remained in Bilaspur CG only. Therefore, there is nexus of the offence with the territorial Jurisdiction of the Sessions Court at Bilaspur and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. In order to appreciate the rival submission of the parties, certain relevant provisions are required to be reproduced which are as under :- Section 2 (a) of the Act of 1949 : 2. Definitions. --- In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,- (a) “active duty” means the duty to restore and preserve order in any local area in the event of any disturbance therein., Section 8.3 of the Act of 1949 : Superintendence, control and administration of the Force. (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) While on active duty outside its headquarters, the Force shall be subject to the general control and direction of such authority or officer as may be prescribed or as may be specially appointed by the Central Government in this behalf. Section 16.2 of the Act of 1949: 16. Powers and duties conferrable and imposable on members of the Force. Section 16.2 of the Act of 1949: 16. Powers and duties conferrable and imposable on members of the Force. ---- (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 pf 1898)* the Central Government may invest the Commandant or an Assistant Commandant with the powers of a Magistrate of any class for the purpose of inquiring into or trying any offence committed by member of the Force and punishable under this Act, or any offence committed by a member or the Force against the person or property of another member: Provided that- (i) When the offender is on leave or absent from duty, or (ii) When the offender is not connected with the offender's duties as a member of the Force, or (iii) When it is a petty offence, even if connected with the offender's duties as a member of the Force, the offence may, if the prescribed authority within the limits of whose Jurisdiction the offence has been committed, so directs, be inquired into or tried by an ordinary Criminal Court having Jurisdiction in the matter. Rule 36 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 Judicial Trials.—(a) All trials in relation to anyone of the offences specified in section 9 or 10 shall be held in accordance with the procedure laid down in the [Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898)]. (b) All persons sentenced to imprisonment under the Act shall be confined in the nearest jail: Provided that if the sentence of imprisonment is for one month or less, “or where the Commandant is satisfied that due to the difficulty of transport and escort of the person sentenced to imprisonment, to the nearest jail, it is so desirable.” Such persons shall be confined in the Quarter Guard of the Force. Section 6 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Classes Criminal Courts. Besides the High Courts and the Courts constituted under any law, other than this Code, there shall be, in every State, the following classes of Criminal Courts, namely:- (i) Courts of Session; (ii) Judicial Magistrates of the first class and, in any metropolitan area, Metropolitan Magistrates; (iii) Judicial Magistrates of the second class; and (iv) Executive Magistrates. Section 9 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Court of Session. (1) The State Government shall establish a Court of Session for every sessions division. Section 9 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Court of Session. (1) The State Government shall establish a Court of Session for every sessions division. (2) Every Court of Session shall be presided over by a Judge, to be appointed by the High Court. (3) The High Court may also appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session. (4) The Sessions Judge of one sessions division may be appointed by the High Court to be also an Additional Sessions Judge of another division and in such case he may sit for the disposal of cases at such place or places in the other division as the High Court may direct. (5) Where the office of the Sessions Judge is vacant, the High Court may make arrangements for the disposal of any urgent application which is, or may be, made or pending before such Court of Session by an Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, or, if there be no Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, by a Chief Judicial Magistrate, in the sessions division; and every such Judge or Magistrate shall have jurisdiction to deal with any such application. (6) The Court of Session shall ordinarily hold its sitting at such place or places as the High Court may, by notification, specify; but, if, in any particular case, the Court of Session is of opinion that it will tend to the general convenience of the parties and witnesses to hold its sittings at any other place in the sessions division, it may, with the consent of the prosecution and the accused, sit at that place for the disposal of the case or the examination of any witness or witnesses therein. Explanation.- For the purposes of this Code," appointment" does not include the first appointment, posting or promotion of a person by the Government to any Service, or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State, where under any law, such appointment, posting or promotion is required to be made by Government. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973: Place of inquiry or trial. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973: Place of inquiry or trial. (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed, partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence, is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Section 179 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues.- When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. 8. From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions of law the fact which emerges is that Judicial Magistrate/Commandant can exercised the powers conferred upon them and punish the offender as prescribed under the act of 1949. From the record it also appears that the applicant applied for earned leave and was granted the same from 12.07.2008 to 10.08.2008, however, he did not report on duty after completion of leave. Thereafter, a warrant of arrest was issued and it was sent to SP Jhabua, MP for his arrest but before the warrant could be executed, the applicant himself reported on 09.12.2008 to Battalion headquarter. Thereafter, Magistrate vide order dated 17.12.2008 found the applicant guilty and imposed the sentence of 13 days' imprisonment on him. It is this order which has been passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class/Commandant – 188 Battalion CRPF Taral, Pulvama, Jammu & Kashmir. Reading of Sections 177 and 178 Cr.P.C. goes to show that inquiry or trial ordinarily takes place in the local Jurisdiction where the offence was committed. It is this order which has been passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class/Commandant – 188 Battalion CRPF Taral, Pulvama, Jammu & Kashmir. Reading of Sections 177 and 178 Cr.P.C. goes to show that inquiry or trial ordinarily takes place in the local Jurisdiction where the offence was committed. Section 16 (2) of Act of 1949 envisages that offence may, if the prescribed authority within the limits of whose Jurisdiction the offence has been committed, so directs, be inquired into or tried by an ordinary Criminal Court having Jurisdiction in the matter. In the case in hand, the trial was conducted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class/Commandant Taral, Pulvama, Jammu & Kashmir, meaning thereby the offence is said to have been committed within the local Jurisdiction of Taral Pulvama and therefore, the trial was conducted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class/Commandant Taral, Pulvama, Jammu & Kashmir. Section 6 Cr.P.C. provides for the classes of Criminal Courts whereas Section 9 indicates that the State Government shall establish a Court of Session for every session Division. Naturally, if an order is passed by a Judicial Magistrate First Class, the same shall be appealable under the provisions of Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court within whose local Jurisdiction the order was passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. 9. Counsel for the applicant tried to persuade this Court on the basis of the fact that the applicant was on active duty but his headquarter remained at Bilaspur CG, and therefore, the Bilaspur Court would have the Jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. In the opinion of this Court, this submission does not hold water and is liable to be rejected. From perusal of Sections 6, 9, 177 & 178 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that simply because the applicant's headquarter was at Bilaspur, it will not confer Jurisdiction on the Sessions Court Bilaspur CG to entertain and hear the appeal under the Provisions of Cr.P.C. against an order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class/Commandant Taral, Pulvama, Jammu & Kashmir. From perusal of Sections 6, 9, 177 & 178 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that simply because the applicant's headquarter was at Bilaspur, it will not confer Jurisdiction on the Sessions Court Bilaspur CG to entertain and hear the appeal under the Provisions of Cr.P.C. against an order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class/Commandant Taral, Pulvama, Jammu & Kashmir. From the record it does not appear that any part of the offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sessions Court Bilaspur CG, therefore, in view of the provisions of Sections 177, 178 Cr.P.C. and section 16 (2) of Act of 1949 it cannot be said that the offence committed by the applicant could have been inquired into or tried within the local jurisdiction of Sessions Court Bilaspur. Looking from any angle it does not appear that the impugned order suffers from any patent illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference in this revision filed under Section 397/401 CrPC. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court and accordingly, the revision is dismissed. 11. At this Juncture, it is to be seen that the appeal of the applicant has not been decided on merits, therefore, the applicant would be at liberty to avail the remedies available to him under the law.