STATE Vs. MEGHNAD BAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case raises a point which has never been the subject of adjudication by this Court. In the present case, three accused persons Meghnad alms Megha Bag, Gour Patra and Almash Mollah are charged with committing offence triable by a Court of Sessions on the river Hooghly opposite to Batanagar. Preliminary enquiry was held into their case by one of the Presidency magistrates of Calcutta and they have been committed to this Court for trial.

(2.) A question has been raised whether this Court has jurisdiction. The first point that has to be considered is whether the commitment itself has been a valid one. Ordinarily, the jurisdiction of the Presidency magistrate extends to the town of Calcutta but under Section 20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is provided that-

(3.) It is not doubted that Hooghly is a navigable river which leads to the port of Calcutta, which is the port of the town of Calcutta. Therefore, under Section 20, the commitment was made by proper court. The question then arises whether a Presidency magistrate should have made a commitment to this Court or to the proper Court of Sessions, namely, the Court of Sessions 24-Parganas within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which Batanagar is. Ordinarily, the law is that a Presidency magistrate, a district magistrate, a sub-divisional magistrate and a magistrate of the first class or any specially empowered magistrate may commit a person for trial to the Court of Sessions or to High Court for any offence tribal by such court. The offences in the present case are under Sections 399, 397, and 402, Indian Penal Code, and they are shown as tribal by a Court of Sessions in the schedule.