SITARAM AGARWALLA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has prayed in this revision for a direction to the Magistrate to hold an enquiry as contemplated under Section 187 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter 'referred to as the ''Code '' before directing the Petitioner to appear before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, Madhya Pradesh, which Magistrate has Jurisdiction to try the offence in question.

(2.) THE Petitioner was arrested by the Madhya Pradesh Police in connection with Mahasamud P. S. Case No. 63 of 1986 on the allegation that he had committed an offence under Section 42. Indian Penal Code, and was produced before the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal, who remanded the Petitioner to custody. The Petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge released him on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 5,000/ - with one surety for the like amount on condition that the Petitioner would appear before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, on 24 -10 -1986. failing which his bail bond was ordered to be cancelled. The aforesaid order of the Sessions Judge was later on modified by order dated 23 -10 -1986 by which the Petitioner was directed to appear in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund in Madhya Pradesh on 20 -11 -1986. In the meantime, the Petitioner approached this Court and obtained an order of stay regarding implementation of the direction of the Sessions Judge.

(3.) SECTION l87 of the Code is an enabling power of the Magistrate to issue summons or warrant for offence Committed beyond his local jurisdiction. This section corresponds to Section 186 of the repealed Code. Undoubtedly, Section 187 of the Code deals with a case in which the Court which has jurisdiction has not taken cognisance of the offence, and the offence is brought to the notice of a Magistrate who is not competent to try it. In such a case, on an accused being produced before the Magistrate, the Magistrate may institute an enquiry as contem plated in Section 167 of the Code. But it cannot be held that the Magistrate must hold an enquiry before directing production of the accused in the Court by which the offence is triable or before releasing the accused on bail and directing him to appear before the concerned Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the offence in question has been committed. It is also equally well settled that where a Magistrate takes cognisance of an offence committed within the local limits of his jurisdiction and has issued a warrant under Section 80 of the Code for the arrest of a person living outside the limits of his jurisdiction, the Magistrate before whom such person is produced under Section 80 cannot hold an enquiry under Section 187. Section 187 does not override the provisions in Sections 70 to 81 of the Code which deal with execution of warrants of arrest. In my opinion, the order of the Magistrate remanding the accused to custody and the order of the Sessions Judge releasing the accused on bail and directing him to appear before the Judicial Magistrate First. Class, Mahasamund, on a particular day which Magistrate has jurisdiction to try the offence, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction, merely because the Magistrate did not institute an enquiry as contemplated under Section 187 of the Code nor has there been any miscarriage of justice which requires interference of this Court in exercise of the inherent power. In the present case, the police which arrested the Petitioner prayed that the Petitioner be remanded to jail custody for some time during which time they would obtain the production warrant from the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, Madhya Pradesh, under whose local jurisdiction the offence in question has been committed. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, the best course for the Magistrate would be to require the police to cause production of a warrant from the Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the offence is alleged to have been committed and before whom the accused has to face his trial. In the circumstances, as stated above, I would direct that the Petitioner shall continue to be on bail as directed by the Sessions Judge till a production warrant is produced before the Magistrate from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, Madhya Pradesh, and on production of such a warrant, the Magistrate would deal with the Petitioner in accordance with the procedure contained in Chapter -VI of the Code, more, particularly, Section 80 of the Code.