SHYAM LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition by one Shyam Lal and another person Hafizullah who have been committed by the Magistrate first class Pulwama by order dated 21-12-65 to stand their trial under Section 302 R. P. C, before the Sessions Judge Anantnag, for having murdered one Vidh Lal.

(2.) IT is very well known that a commitment once made under Section 213 R. P. C. by a competent Magistrate can be quashed only first by this Court alone and that also only on a point of law. The argument of the learned Counsel may be analyzed as under by giving a resume of the facts relevant to the present revision. The murder is alleged to have been committed on 15th May 65 in village Khrew which is a territorial part of the Tehsil Pulwama. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners Khrew in pursuance of a notification No. 3 dated 27-5-59 was included within the local limits of Srinagar courts under Section 22 of the Civil Courts Act. This notification reads as under: "in exercise of the powers under Section 22 of the J and K Civil Courts Act, 1977. and in supersession of all the previous notifications on the subject the Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to refix the territorial jurisdiction of the judicial courts located at Kulgam Shopian and Pulwama as under: x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Munsiff Pulwama The following will form the territorial jurisdiction of Munsiff Pulwama: Tehsil of Pulwama excluding the following Halqas: x x x x x x 9. Khrew Jurisdiction of the Court at Srinagar x x x x x x

(3.) KHREW According to the learned Counsel the jurisdiction of the Munsiff Magistrates in civil and criminal matters is co-extensive. The learned Magistrate who has committed the accused to the sessions court at Anantnag was appointed a Magistrate by means of Order SRO 199 dated 10-6 65 and he was to be a Magistrate for the same jurisdiction which he held as Munsiff. Therefore, Khrew being a part of the jurisdiction of the Srinagar Munsiff the Munsiff at Pulwama had no jurisdiction to carry on the commitment proceedings. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners what happened in this case was that the case was first presented for commitment proceedings before the Munsiff Magistrate first class Pulwama. Evidence was recorded in this case of a number of witnesses, and on 10-12-65 an objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. It may be remarked here that on that date the prosecuting Inspector had closed the prosecution evidence so far as the committing court was concerned and had made a statement that the prosecution would produce the rest of the evidence before the court of Sessions. When this objection was taken by the Munsiff Magistrate at Pulwama, he submitted the record to the ADM Anantnag for transfer to a court of competent jurisdiction. The ADM Anantnag referred the case to the ADM Srinagar who, it is alleged, retransferred the case to the ADM Anantnag, who again ordered thai the commitment proceedings be held by the Mua siff Magistrate at Pulwama. The order of the ADM Anantnag transferring the case to the ADM Srinagar and the order of the ADM Srinagar retransferring the case to the ADM Anantnag are reported not to be traceable although an opportunity was given -to the learned Counsel for the parties to give the particulars of the file so that the same could be sent for. Anyhow, for the disposal of this revision petition, these orders are not very necessary and therefore the absence of such record need not detain us.