ULAHANNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the time of argument, Sri Mathew Muricken, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, had also questioned the jurisdiction of the Quilon Sessions Court to try the case. Both sides were prepared to argue this question as well.

(2.) IT was admitted by both sides that the offences alleged were committed within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, Alleppey. Most of the accused and the witnesses also live there. There is therefore no doubt that, looking to the convenience of the parties, Alleppey Sessions Court has to be preferred.

(3.) IF the First Class Magistrate, Quilon, had tried the accused for an offence committed outside his jurisdiction because of the transfer of the case to his file by a competent authority, and convicted them, then the court where an appeal against the conviction has to be filed would have been the Sessions Court, Quilon and Sehi Lal v. The State (1950) 5 DLR allahabad (Luck-B) 397 would be an authority for that position. In that case also a distinction had been made by his Lordship Mr. Justice Waliullah between cases of commitment and appeal.