NARSINH VERMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 29-11-2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Revision No. 160/2008, reversing the order dated 14-2-2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, in Criminal Case No. 149/2008, whereby learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC against non-applicant No. 2, proceeded against non-applicant No. 2 and issued the process. The order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge vide the order impugned on the ground that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the offence which has not been committed within its territorial jurisdiction and quashed the order dated 14-2-2008.

(2.) THE order of the Sessions Judge is challenged on the ground that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was competent to take cognizance of the offence under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), trial has not been commenced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, therefore, there was no bar under Section 177 of the Code and by reversing the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Court below has committed illegality.

(3.) ON perusal of the order impugned, copies of the documents and copies of the statements, it appears that the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC has been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, situated at Durg and not within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court situated at Raipur. In terms of Section 460 (e) read with Section 190 and Chapter XIV of the Code, the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur was competent to take cognizance of the offence irrespective of the fact that whether it was committed within its jurisdiction or not and cognizance taken by the Magistrate may be irregular but it does not vitiate the proceeding. But, if any Magistrate, not being empowered by law in this behalf, tries an offender, same is irregular which vitiates the proceeding in accordance with clause (1) of Section 461 of the Code and such proceeding shall be void. Therefore, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was empowered to take cognizance of the offence, but was not empowered to try or inquire the case.