Authored By : R.F. Lodge, Thomas Hobart Ellis

R.F. Lodge, J.

1. This rule was issued on the District Magistrate ofRajshahi and on the opposite party to show cause why proceedings pending in theCourt of Mr. D. N. Chakravarti should not be quashed. The material facts are asfollows: A petition of complaint was filed by one Rahim Sadar in the Court ofthe Sub-divisional Officer of Naogaon against six persons. The allegation wasthat the wife of the complainant was a girl named Rupjan Bibi aged 15 or 16years. She had been enticed away by two persons named Malo and Ramo and takento Khagra in the district of Purnes where she was sold to Radharani and JamatAli for the sum of Rs. 100. When the complainant came to hear of theoccurrence, he gave a missing information at the police station andsubsequently sent some friends to Khagra to bring back his wife. These friendsfound the girl Rupjan in the custody of Radharani and Jamat Ali; and the latterdid not allow the girl to be taken away. On these allegations a warrant withoutbail was issued against four persons-Radharani, Jamat Ali, Malo and Ramo underSs. 372, 373 and 498, Penal Code. Only Radharani and Jamat Ali were arrested.The other accused persons are said to be still absconding. Radharani and JamatAli were produced before the Magistrate and evidence was recorded. All theprosecution witnesses with the exception of an Assistant Sub-Inspector ofPolice were examined and the learned Magistrate applied his mind to thequestion of framing a charge. He then passed the following order :

21st September 1945. Examined 8 more witnesses. It nowappears that the only change with which the present two accused can be chargedis under S. 378, Penal Code. But that offence was committed in the jurisdictionof Purnea District in different province, the accused being resident there andhaving made the alleged purchase also there. The question now is whether thesetwo accused can be tried here. To 8th October 1945 for arguments of bothparties as required by them.

2. On 8th October the accused filed a petition objecting tothe jurisdiction of the Naogaon Court. The case was then adjourned to 8thNovember to consider the question of jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate thenpassed the following order :

8. 11. 45. Examined one A. S. I. Prosecution declines toadduce any further evidence. Heard arguments. Following the case reported to 46All 138 and 21 A. L. J. 912 Emperor v. Badlu Sah (24) 11 :A.I.R. 1924 All. 454 : 46 All. 138 : 81 I. C. 40: 21 A. L. J. 912 and also inaccordance with the provision of S. 531, Criminal P. C. I hold that the caseshould be tried here. Accordingly I frame charges under Ss. 373 and 368, PenalCode, against both the accused.

3. As a consequence of this order the present rule wasissued. It has been contended before us that the learned Magistrate at Naogaonhad no jurisdiction to try the present two petitioners, Radharani and JamatAli. We have examined the evidence in this case. There is not one word ofevidence on record as yet to show that the petitioners had any knowledge thatthe woman Rupjan had been kidnapped or abducted. The learned Magistrate wasperfectly right in his order of 21st September 1945 that the only charge whichcould properly be framed against the petitioners was a charge under S. 373,Penal Code, and that he had no jurisdiction to try that charge. It seems to usapparent that the framing of the charge under S. 368 was little more than adevice to justify the learned Magistrate in assuming jurisdiction in this caseand that the evidence on record justifies a charge under S. 373 and scarcelyjustifies a charge under S. 368, Penal Code.

4. It is clear that the Purnea Court has jurisdiction to trythe offence under S. 373, Penal Code, and also the charge under S. 368, ifframed. The Naogaon Court undoubtedly has jurisdiction to try the offence underS. 368 if the evidence justifies the framing of a charge under that section. Itis even then open to question whether the Naogaon Court has any jurisdiction totry the charge under S. 373. Mr. Chakravarty opposing this rule has adopted theargument of the learned Magistrate and argued that S. 531, Criminal P. C.,gives the Magistrate jurisdiction. We do not read S. 531 in that sense. In ouropinion S. 531 cures irregular proceedings wrongly held in a wrong local areaunless it appears that the error as to territorial jurisdiction has in factoccasioned a failure of justice. Section 531 does not entitle a Magistrate toproceed with a trial in the wrong local area with his eyes open to the factthat he has no territorial jurisdiction. It does not in fact confer ajurisdiction on the Magistrate.

5. In our opinion the proper Court in which this case shouldbe tried is the Court in the district of Purnea where the offence alleged tohave been committed by these two petitioners was committed. The Naogaon Courthas apparently no jurisdiction and we must, therefore, quash the proceedings inthat Court. The rule is accordingly made absolute. The proceedings in the Courtat Naogaon are quashed. The present petitioners will execute a bond to appearin the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer at Kishenganj when called upon to doso. This bond will remain in force for a period of three months only.

Thomas Hobart Ellis, J.

6. I agree.

.

Radharani and Ors. vs. Rahim Sardar (06.03.1946 - CALHC)