GOKAL PRASAD Vs. GOVINDRAO SUBHEDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JACKSON , A.J.C. 1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Bettil, in connexion with an election petition under the Municipal Election Rules. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in revision has been questioned; but it is a fact that such applications have been hitherto entertained and I find that in Chellaswami Konar v. Sangama Nayakar A.I.R. 1927 Mad 935 the jurisdiction of the High Court has been efnitely asserted. That is a view from which I am not prepared to dissent, particularly as the wording of the rules appears to give the civil Court, as such the jurisdiction to deal with election petitions.

(2.) THE election petition was originally presented, as the rules then in force required, to the Deputy Commissioner. Whiles it was pending, the rules were amended and the jurisdiction was given to the civil Court. The petition was accordingly transferred, but the applicant objected to the civil Court's jurisdiction on the ground that the amendment of the rules had not a retrospective effect. The learned Subordinate Judge has held against the applicant and revision of his order is now sought. Reliance is placed on Section 5, Clause (c), C.P. General Clauses Act, which deals with the continuance of proceedings after the enactment, under which they were instituted, has been repealed; but it does not seem to me that that section requires the proceedings to continue before the original Court and not before the Court to which jurisdiction may have been transferred by the repealing Act. Moreover, legislation is regarded as having retrospective effect in so far as it relates to procedure.

(3.) ON behalf of the non-applicant I have been referred to the decision in Rajib Lochan Dhar v. Jogesh Chandra Das A. I.R. 1924 Cal. 983. It dealt with an amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code, which made an offence previously trible only by the Court of Session triable by a Magistrate of the First Class. It was held that the amendment related to procedure and had retrospective effect and that a case, commenced before the amending Act came into force, could he disposed of by a Magistrate. That is a view with which I respectfully concur. I am of opinion then that an amendment of the law, which changes the forum and does not take away the right to institute proceedings, relates to procedure only and has retrospective effect. That being so, I must hold that the Subordinate Judge, in the present case, has jurisdiction to deal with the election petition presented to the Deputy Commissioner. The application for revision is dismissed with costs. I fix pleader's fee at Rs. 20.