STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. MUNIYALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The High Court took the view that the Vlth Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Bangalore had no jurisdiction to try Sessions Case No. 17/81, since that case has not been made over to him by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, under S. 194 of the Criminal P.C. and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Vlth Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge against the respondent was therefore vitiated. The High Court accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the respondent and directed the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge to see "that on receipt of the records, the trial of the said Sessions Case is held in accordance with law bearing in mind the aforementioned observations made in the Judgment." The State of Karanataka being aggrieved by this Order passed by the High Court preferred the present appeal after obtaining Special Leave from this Court.

(3.) Now it is obvious that the Judgment of the High Court is patently wrong and cannot be sustained and in fact Mr. Kapil Sibbal appearing on behalf of the respondent, with his usual candour and frankness, stated that it was difficult for him to support the Judgment. We may proceed on the basis that the Vlth Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge could try only such Sessions Cases as were made over to him by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge in exercise of the powers conferred under S. 194 of the Criminal P.C., though we are not at all sure that, even if the Vlth Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge tried a Sessions Case which was not formally made over to him. The trial would be invalid, because in any event the Vlth Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge would have inherent jurisdiction to try the Sessions Case. We need not however, go into that question because we find that there was an order made by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge on 30th Jan. 1981 making over Sessions Case No. 17/79 to the VIth Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. Undoubtedly this order was purported to be made by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge in exercise of the powers conferred under S. 409 of the Criminal P.C. and this Section did not confer power on the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge to make over Sessions Case No. 17/79 to the VIth Additional City Civil Sessions Judge. But it is now well-settled that merely because an order is purported to be made under a wrong provision of law, it does not become invalid so long as there is some other provision of law under which the order could be validly made. Mere recital of a wrong provision of law does not have the effect of invalidating an order which is otherwise within the power of the authority making it. Here the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge had power under S. 194 of the Criminal P.C. to make over Sessions Case No. 17/79 to the Vlth Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and the order made by him on 30th Jan. 1981 was clearly within his authority and the only error was that he recited a wrong Section of the Criminal P.C. The order dated 30th Jan. 1981 made by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge must be read as an order made under S. 194 of the Criminal P.C. in so far as the direction making over Sessions Case No. 17/79 to the Vlth Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge is concerned. We are therefore of the view that Sessions Case No. 17/79 was validly made over to the Vlth Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and he had jurisdiction to try that Sessions Case. The Judgment of the High Court setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the respondent on the ground that the VIth Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to try Sessions Case No. 17/79, must consequently be held to be erroneous.