C.J.M. Doda vs Memo

Syed Bashir-Ud-Din, J.—The posts of Munsiff District Mobile Magistrates were created at the District Head Quarters other than the

Districts of Srinagar and Jammu. For the purpose Munsiffs with powers of District Mobile Magistrate were appointed at the Head Quarters of

these Districts in J & K. These Munsiff Judicial Magistrates were conferred the powers of Special Judicial Magistrates in respect of cases arising

under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 with regard to cases arising within their local areas. The Munsiff District Mobile Magistrate Doda was one

such Court invested with powers to try cases under Motor Vehicles Act as a Special Judicial Magistrate. Notification 38 of 1987 was issued on

21st of January, 1987 by the Government in consultation with High Court pursuant to provisions of Section 14 of Cr. Procedure Code. After the

Munsiff Mobile Magistrate was in place as such Special Judicial Magistrate, he addressed communication 127 dt. 3-7-87 to Chief Judicial

Magistrate Doda complaining that the cases pending in the Courts of Batote, Ramban and Banihal within his local jurisdiction, may be transferred

on the file of Munsiff District Mobile Magistrate (Traffic) Doda and the Traffic Officers/personnel may be asked to produce all cases arising under

Motor Vehicles Act within District Doda in the Court of Munsiff District Mobile Magistrate (Traffic) Doda. Acting on this communication the then

sub-Judge Chief Judicial Magistrate Doda sought Information from the Courts of Sub-Judge Batote and Ramban and Munsiff Banihal. After

receiving the lists and other informations of the cases all those cases were transferred to Munsiff District Mobile Magistrate (Traffic) Doda. While

passing directions thereto the Chief Judicial Magistrate Doda has made observations that the Traffic Cases which have been tried by the Sub-

Judges Batote and Ramban and Munsiff Banihal, have been decided and tried against law in so far as none of the three Magistrates has any

jurisdiction to decide those cases. While making this observation the then CJM also remarked that he is neither deciding nor passing any order

thereto whether the matters disposed of by these Magistrates were decided within or beyond jurisdiction. The copy of order when forwarded to

Registrar, same has been referred to the Court on judicial side.

Matter is quite old and assistance of parties is not available despite opportunities to concerned, but on the request of Court Mr. M.I. Qadri,

SAAG assisted the Court. He was heard. Record perused.

The matter is admittedly covered by Motor Vehicles Act of 1939. The only provision prescribing jurisdiction of the Court for trial of offences

under Motor Vehicles Act is Section 132 which reads as under :-

Jurisdiction of Courts - No Court inferior to that of a presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the Second Class shall try any offence

punishable under this Act or any rule made thereunder.

Obviously in other respects the offence has to be tried in accordance with procedure prescribed by Criminal Procedure Code, in so far as

Section 5(2) provides that offences arising under any law other than RPC, shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with

according to the provisions of the Code, subject to the rider that if manner or place of investigation, inquiry into, trying or otherwise dealing with

the offences is provided for by covering in force enactment. The mode and manner of inquiry into and trial of offence is not prescribed by Motor

Vehicles Act. Section 177 of Cr.P.C. provides,

Ordinary place of inquiry and trial -

Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed.

Section 14 of Cr.P.C. empowers the Government to appoint Special Judicial Magistrates in consultation with High Court in respect of specified

cases in any local area. Munsiff District Mobile Magistrate (Traffic) is appointed as a Special District Magistrate under this provision. Obviously,

the appointment of and exercise of powers by these Special Judicial Magistrate is confined to their respective local areas as specified thereto in the

provision. The judicial Magistrate like those at Batote, Ramban and Banihal continued to validly exercise jurisdiction and try cases under Motor

Vehicles Act within their respective local limits pursuant to enabling provisions inter-alia Section 177 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 132 of Motor

Vehicles Act 1939. The exercise of powers and trial of cases by these Magistrates within their local limits and jurisdiction, so long the cases were

not transferred to District Mobile Magistrate (Traffic) Doda by the High Court, cannot be questioned. Therefore, the trial and disposal of cases by

these Magistrates under Motor Vehicles Act, is within the confines of law. Merely because the then Chief Judicial Magistrate Doda viewed the

exercise of powers of these Magistrates with suspicion, is no ground to hold that exercise of Jurisdiction by these Magistrates is vitiated by

jurisdictional error or that exercise of jurisdiction is with material irregularity or in contravention of due procedure established by law. It appears

that the then Chief Judicial Magistrate had more against the then Sub-Judge Batote rather than to espouse the cause of justice or to prevent abuse

of process of Court or to keep the Magistrates within the confines of their respective jurisdiction. It may be of some interest to note that the then

Chief Judicial Magistrate as also the then Sub-Judge Batote have since retired on superannuation. Even Sub-Judge Ramban has died. No specific

instance or case has been brought to the notice of the High Court to show that the concerned Magistrates have gone beyond jurisdiction to try the

cases under Motor Vehicles Act. The vague omnibus and sweeping observations of lack of jurisdiction, made by the then CJM Doda against Sub-

Judge Batore in particular, and other Courts in general, in having illegally decided the cases without being able to count/cite even single instance can

scarcely be a ground for examination of the matter in superintendence/ revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. There is no merit in this revision.

In result revision is dismissed. Matter closed. Inform the concerned of this araer.