DEEN Vs. JACOB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that it was at the fag end of the trial that the question of jurisdiction was raised by the respondents; that the prosecution has adduced the entire evidence in the case and the trial has reached almost completion and that in the circumstances it is expedient to meet the ends of justice that this court should allow the prayer of the petitioner.

(2.) OPPOSING this petition on various grounds, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that there is absolutely no bona fides in this petition; that this has been filed to protract the proceedings; that this Court cannot be called upon to decide a question in issue before the trial court which that court has to decide on the evidence before it: that this is a case where the petitioner maintained and argued before the trial court that it has got jurisdiction to try the same and that none of the grounds mentioned in the affidavit is sufficient for a transfer of the case.

(3.) THE decision in Mohammad Abbus Aliv. Indraprakashkapoor (AIR. 1965 Cal. 626) relied on by the counsel for the petitioner in support of his prayer for transfer has no application to the facts of the present case, this decision was rendered placing reliance on an earlier Division Bench ruling of that Court in Amarendra Nath v. Raghunath Nandan (AIR. 1952 Cal. 849 ). In amarendra Nath's case, on the evidence before the court the trying magistrate expressed his view that he has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. THEreupon the complainant filed an application before the High Court praying that the High Court should exercise the powers under S. 526 of the Old Code (S. 407 of the New Code) and order the trying magistrate before whom the proceedings were pending to proceed with the trial. In Mohammad Abbus Ali's case, a complaint filed alleging commission of an offence under S. 420 IPC. was being tried by the 1st Class Magistrate, Sealdah District. It was only at the fag end of the trial they; the complainant discovered want of territorial jurisdiction in the Magistrate who was trying the case. Immediately the complainant filed a petition praying that the High Court should direct the 1st class Magistrate, Sealdah District under S. 526 (1) (e) of the Old Code (S. 407 (1) (c) of the New Code) to try the case himself although he has no territorial jurisdiction. Thus in the two Calcutta cases referred to above, the respective complainants therein alleged or admitted before the High Court that the magistrates who were trying their cases had no local or territorial jurisdiction to try the offences involved in these cases.