Mundiath Valia Ambu Podaval and Others vs King Emperor

The difficulty in this case arises from the fact that there are two Sessions Divisions in the same district. This state of things cannot be treated as

unwarranted by the law, for, the same was the case when the Code of Criminal Procedure was passed and paragraph 3 of Section 7 of it

recognizes the legality of the then existing Sessions Divisions and districts unless and until altered.

The Magistrate against whose decision the appeal is to be preferred, has his head-quarters in Calicut which is within the local limits of the South

Malabar Sessions Division, though he is authorized to try offences throughout the whole district, including cases arising within the Sessions division

of North Malabar. It must, we think, be held that appeals against his"" decisions lie to the Sessions Judge of South Malabar, irrespective of the

place where the offence was committed.

Section 408, Criminal Procedure Code, referring to appeals from First Class Magistrates merely states that, the appeal lies ""to the Court of

Session"" without any further explanatory words.

Section 435, however, which deals with the powers of revision of Sessions Courts enacts that the Sessions Judge may call for and examine the

records of any inferior Criminal Court or ""situate"" within the local limits of his jurisdiction. The word ""situate "" means fixed or located. When

applied to a Court it must be taken to refer to the place where the Court ordinarily sits. In the absence of any indication to the contrary in the

Criminal Procedure Code, the principle thus laid down in regard to the analogous powers of revision u/s 435, should be followed in the case of

appeals also. We hold, therefore, that the appeals should have been received by the Sessions Court of South'' Malabar, and direct that they be

now received by that Court and dealt with according to law.