STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAMKISHAN ALIASSUFAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been made by the Senior Magistrate, Children Court, Kota.

(2.) THE breif facts which have given rise to the present reference are that a challan was submitted against the accused Ram Kishan and Haboo under section 127 of the Railways Act. THE learned Magistrate by his order dated 14. 4. 1979 submitted the case before the learned Sessions Judge, Kota, who transferred the same to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, by his order dated 17. 8. 1979. Before this, by order dated 24. 5. 1976. the learned Sessions Judge transferred this case to the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kota, but later on, vide order dated 15. 7. 1976, this case was transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota as the accused were children. THE learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide his order dated 22. 9. 1979, held that under section 27 of the Criminal Procedure Code only those offences are to be tried by him which are either punishable with imprisonment for life or with death sentence, and all other cases are to be tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate dealing with the children cases. THE offience under section 127 of Railways Act is punishable with imprisonment for life. THE learned Magistrate while relying on section 14 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the amendment of 1978 has made the reference. THE learned Magistrate has opined that as the incident took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, it should be tried before him. It has, however, been pointed out that the Children Act has not been made applicable to the District of Bharatpur and, if the case is tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur then the accused would be deprived of the benefits of the provisions of the Children Act. THE learned Magistrate has, therefore, prayed that a direction be issued whether the case should be tried by the Children Court at Kota, or this case be sent to the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur for disposal according to law.

(3.) IT has been contended on behalf of the State that the plain reading of Section 14 (3) would be as following after omitting such words which are not necessary for the present case. Section 14 (3) would read as under : - "where the local jurisdiction of Magistrate - - extends to an aread beyond the district. . . . . . in which he ordinarily holds Court, any reference in this Code to the Court of Sessions. . . . . . . . shall, in relation to such Magistrate, throughout the area within his local jurisdiction, be construed - - as a reference to the Court of Sessions. . . . . exercising the jurisdiction in relation to the said district. "