D C VARMA Vs. BHAGWANJI VIRJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is the original complainant and on his complaint the opponent no. 1 is sought to be prosecuted for the alleged offence under sec. 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act of 1966 That case was registered as Criminal Case No. 74/74 and was tried by the concerned Railway Magistrate Mr. Lakhataria During the course of the trial a question arose whether the petitioner should be summoned to produce the statements recorded by him during the course of inquiry conducted by the Railway Protection Force. That application was made under sec. 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (which is hereinafter referred to as the Code) by the opponent-accused The learned Magi- strate rejected that application of the opponent-accused on 16-4-75 at Rajkot. The learned Magistrate has signed the order as Judicial Magi- strate F. C. (Railway) Junagadh at Rajkot.

(2.) Here it should be mentioned that it is an admitted position that the offence for which the opponent-accused is sought to be prosecuted was committed within the limits of Junagadh district.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said order the opponent-accused preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 15/75 before the Court of the Sessions Judge at Rajkot. One of the contentions which was taken on behalf of the Western Railway before the learned Sessions Judge Rajkot was that since the offence has been committed within the limits of Junagadh district and since the learned Magistrate has passed the order as Judicial Magi- strate F. C. (Railway) Junagadh at Rajkot it is the Court of the Sessions Judge at Junagadh which has jurisdiction to hear the revision. According to the Western Railway therefore the court of Sessions at Rajkot has no jurisdiction to hear the Revision Application preferred by the accused. This contention as regards the jurisdiction was over-ruled by the learned Sessions Judge and being aggrieved by that the present petitioner has preferred this Application under sec. 482 of the Code.