State vs Indar Singh

Teja Singh, C.J.—This is a reference by S. Rajbir Singh Kang, District Magistrate Sangrur. As regards the history of the case, out of which the reference has arisen, it is analogous to that of the case which was the subject-matter of reference No. 70 of mil. made by the District Magistrate, Patiala. The offence was alleged to have been committed on 17-11-1949 arid the challan was put in that court of S.D.M. Nabha on 3-2-1950. The S.D.M. forwarded it for disposal to the Magistrate II Class, Nabha on that very day. After the case had remained pending in that court for more than two months an objection was taken by the accused''s counsel that the Nabha Court had no jurisdiction to try it. On this the magistrate submitted the record of the case on 27-4-1950 to the S.D.M. Nabha with the request that the same be transferred to some court in Sangrur. The S.D.M. Nabha accepted the Magistrate''s request and by his order, dated 10-5-1950, forwarded the record of the case to the District Magistrate Sangrur, who sent it to the court of S. Jawala Nath, Magistrate Ist Class, Sangrur.

After a couple of months, i.e., on 31-8-50, S. Jawala Nath resubmitted the record of the case to the District Magistrate Sangrur with the request that it should be returned to the S.D.M. Nabha because the Nabha courts alone had jurisdiction to entertain it. Accordingly the D.M. through the S.D.M. sent it to the court of the Magistrate Ist Class, Nabha (S. Shamshad Ali). On 16-12-1950 S. Shamshad Ali came to the conclusion that the ease could not be tried by him and it was triable only by a magistrate at Sangrur. So he once more submitted the record of the case to the S.D.M. Nabha for being forwarded to the D.M. sangrur. This was done. But the District Magistrate Sangrur instead of taking any action himself has referred the matter to this Court.

As in the case of the other reference in the present case too the way in which it was being handled by the various magistrates, including the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Nabha, does not give credit to them and as I pointed out in the previous reference neither of them had any authority to transfer the case from one District to another. The proper course for them was to refer the case for proper orders to this Court. What is particularly regrettable in the present case is that though the reference was made to this Court in the beginning of the year 1951 it could not be disposed of earlier because notice issued to the accused could not be served and the reason for this was that the different police stations to which the notices were sent refused to effect service on the plea that the village to which the accused belonged was not within their respective halqa.

Now as regards the merits of the reference. It is common knowledge that the Patiala and East Punjab States Union came into existence on 20-8-1948 & that very day was promulgated the delimitation Ordinance No. IV of 2005. Section 2 of this Ordinance laid down that subject to the provisions of Sections 3 and 4, for the purposes of revenue management and administration the territories comprising the Patiala and East Punjab States Union were divided into two divisions, eight districts, three sub-divisions, and 24 Tehsils as shown in the Schedule attached to the Ordinance. According to the Schedule, the village Alipur, with which we are concerned in the present case, became a part of Nabha Tehsil and Patiala District. The Ordinance dealing with the Courts is Patiala and East Punjab States Union Judicature Ordinance No. X of 2005. So far as the Subordinate Civil Courts are concerned, it is laid down in Section 82 of the said Ordinance that the local limits of the jurisdiction of a Subordinate Judge "shall be such, as the High Court may define" and Section 107 lays down that

all subordinate Judges shall exercise within the respective areas of their civil jurisdiction powers of such class of Magistrates as the High Court may from time to time invest them with.

The records of the High Court show that no action was taken u/s 82 of Ordinance No. X of 2005 with the result that the local limits of jurisdiction of subordinate civil courts were never defined. It, however, appears that in practice every subordinate court,-civil as well as criminal,-was guided by the delimitation effected by the Schedule attached to Ordinance No. IV of 2005 and exercised jurisdiction as if that delimitation had been recognised by the High Court. Later on the Government effected fresh delimitation by means of their Resolution No. 27 of 8th April 1949. Since this delimitation was somewhat different from the one effected by Ordinance No. IV of 2005, a Circular letter No. 5125 dated 19-3-2006 was issued by the High Court, whereby the courts were ordered to stick to the prevailing practice and not to take notice of the fresh delimitation made by the Government Resolution. It is, no doubt true that in the absence of a clear Notification by the High Court laying down the local limits of jurisdiction of subordinate civil courts it can be urged that the courts are in a difficulty and cannot very well understand what the local limits of their jurisdiction are, but since the circular letter of the High Court mentioned above refers to the delimitation effected by Ordinance No. IV of 2005, it can be said that by implication the High Court fixed the local limits of jurisdictions of civil courts in accordance with that delimitation and by virtue of section 107 of the Ordinance each Sub-Judge when invested with criminal powers had jurisdiction to hear and try criminal cases within the respective area of his civil jurisdiction.

In the present case, the offence was committed in Alipur village and since according to the delimitation (Ordinance No. 4 of 2005) the village was in Nabha Tehsil of the Patiala District, the Nabha Magistrate could try it. It may be mentioned that even according to the delimitation given effect to by Government Resolution No. 27 of 8-4-1949 Alipur remained in Nabha Tehsil, so the jurisdiction of the Nabha Magistrate to try the case was not affected. I cannot, therefore, understand on what ground the Second Class Magistrate, Nabha refused to go on with the case and forwarded the record to the S.D.M. Nabha for being transferred to Sangrur District nor can I understand how the S.D.M. Nabha accepted the Magistrate''s recommendation and sent the case to the District Magistrate Sangrur.

Accordingly the reference is accepted and record of the case is sent back to the Magistrate Ist Class Nabha, with the direction that he should dispose it of according to law.

Mr. Ram Niwas counsel for the accused has been directed to cause his client to appear before the Ist Class Magistrate Nabha on the 21st instant.