STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the State is against an order of acquittal and arises in the following circumstances. A charge sheet under section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the present respondents, three in number, by the police in the Court of Judicial Magistrate lInd Class Dharamsala. The allegations against the respondents were that on 4-5-1974 at village Sawala all of them in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused a simple injury to one Niru by a Drat. The learned Magistrate on a consideration of the police report was of the view that a case under section 324/34 Indian Penal Code was prima facie made out against all the respondents and hence he charged them accordingly.

(2.) The respondents had all pleaded not guilty to the charge. After four of the prosecution witnesses had been examined, it was brought to the notice of the Magistrate that one of the respondents, namely, Kartar Singh was below 16 years of age and in view of the provisions of section 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try this respondent. The Magistrate accordingly awarded the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Dharamsala.

(3.) The Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded with the trial from that stage onwards. After the trial was over an argument was advanced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that the trial was vitiated in-as-much as a part of the same had been conducted by the Judicial Magistrate lInd Class who had no jurisdiction to do so in view of the provisions of section 27 of the Code. This argument prevailed with the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate who for this short reason acquitted the respondent holding that the trial was vitiated being against the provision of section 27 of the Code. The order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is patently erroneous and cannot be sustained in law. In the first place there appears to he no warrant for the view taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate that by virtue of the provisions of 27 of the Code, the Judicial Magistrate lInd Class had no jurisdiction to try the respondents for the offence under section 324 Indian Penal Code because one of them was at the time of his appearance before the Magistrate under 16 years of age. If this view is accepted it would mean that the jurisdiction specifically conferred upon the Magistrate by section 26 was taken away by the immediately succeeding section 27. It is a well established rule of interpretation of statutes that ouster of jurisdiction lawfully vested in a Court is not to be readily inferred. Whenever such a jurisdiction is attempted to be ousted there must be an unambiguous provision pointing to a clear intendment on the part of the legislature to that effect. In case there is a scope to entertain a reasonable doubt about the ousting of the jurisdiction of an existing Court, the Courts must always favor an interpretation which would maintain the existing jurisdiction rather than ousting it.