ASOKE CHAKRABORTY ALIASNOWSAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has in this Rule impugned the order dated 27. 4. 74 passed by Shri S. K. Das, Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta in G. R. Case No. 760 of 1p73 and was prayed for quashing the proceeding and alternatively for transferring the case to the Court of sessions Judge, Howrah, for trial.

(2.) THE petitioner was arrested on 22. 10. 72 over an incident said to have taken place on 14. 10. 72 at about 8 p. m. on a ferry boat near Palghat and lurghat on the river Hooghly within the jurisdiction of Bally Police Station. Over the said incident North Port police Station recorded a case, being case No. 98, dated 15. 10. 72 under section 395/397 I. P. C. and on completion of investigation, submitted a challan under section 395, 397 I. P. C. on 13. 8. 73 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. The case was ultimately transferred to the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court for disposal. By his order dated 27. 4. 74, the learned Magistrate committed the petitioner and another accused to the high Court to face a charge under section 395, 397 I. P. C. on the ground that the City Sessions Court, Calcutta had no jurisdiction to try the case-the incident having taken place on river hooghly.

(3.) MR. Barendra Nath Sur, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has urged before us that the investigation done by North Port Police Station was unauthorised and without jurisdiction as the occurrence took place within the jurisdiction of Bally P. S. , District Howrah. As such, Mr. Sur further urged that the subsequent committal proceeding resulting in an order of commitment of the petitioner and another to the High Court was also without jurisdiction. Mr. Sur submitted before us that the petitioner would be put to serious inconvenience and prejudice if the case was to be tried by the high Court. Lastly, Mr. Sur has urged before us that the learned Magistrate had failed to appreciate that under the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 there was no extra-ordinary criminal jurisdiction of the High Court for holding sessions trial and the present case being not that type of a rare case where operation of section 474 Cr. P. C. has to be called for, the learned Magistrate ought to have made a reference under section 395 Cr. P. C. for necessary directions from the High Court.