BHIMA NAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are inhabitants of village Ghantasahi in Nayagarh police station in the district of Puri. In a proceeding initiated under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898 (hereinafter to be referred to as the old Code) a notice was issued to them under Section 114 of the old Code on 23.2.1974 by a Magistrate 1st Class, Nayagarh, calling upon them to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs. 200/ - with one surety each for the like amount for a period of one year for keeping the peace. On 4.7.1974 the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Nayagarh, passed an order calling upon the petitioners to execute interim bonds under Section 117(3). The revision has been filed to quash his order. The substantive part of the impugned order runs thus :

(2.) RIGHT to file a revision is not a vested right. The impugned order was passed after the new Code came into force. The petitioners shall have to invoke the revisional jurisdiction, not under the old Code but under the new Code. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under the new Code is dealt with in Sections 397, 398 and 401. The validity of the revision must, therefore, be determined with reference to the provisions of the new Code.

(3.) IN AIR 1972 SC 2379, (Shri M.L. Sethi v. Shri R.P. Kapur) the meaning of the word "jurisdiction" was fully examined. The majority view in Anisminde Ltd., (1969) 2 AC 147 was followed. Therein the absence of jurisdiction was not confined to entitlement to enter upon the enquiry in question. It was extended to subsequent error in the exercise of jurisdiction. The observations of Lord Reid may be quoted :