THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 1693 of 2009 Date: 02.12.2009 Between: Mamidi Venu Madhav .. Petitioner And Ramakanth Reddy and others. .. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 1693 of 2009 Order: The petitioner herein has filed this revision case challenging the orders dated 09.09.2009 passed in C.C (SR) No.5458 of 2009 by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, dismissing the complaint filed by him. The brief facts of the case, which are necessary for disposal of this revision, are as follows. The petitioner herein filed a complaint against the respondents alleging that they are allowing immersion of Ganesh idols in Hussainsagar Lake and thereby Iron pieces, Plaster of Paris, Colours mixed with chemicals etc., are polluting the waters of the Lake. The petitioner also narrated the process of immersion and its consequential effect on the Lake and how it is causing pollution. He alleges that the respondents have committed the offences punishable under Sections 277, 268, 425, 107 and 116 IPC and under Section 23(3) read with Section 35(1)(2) of WALTA Act. The office of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the offence had taken place at Hussain Sagar, Hyderabad, which is within the limits of Police Station Saifabad and Gandhinagar and both the police stations do not come under the jurisdiction of the said Court. Accordingly, the complaint was returned with an endorsement that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complaint was resubmitted by the complainant with an endorsement that Hussain Sagar comes under the jurisdiction of Police Stations Saifabad, Gandhinagar, Ramgopalpet and Panjagutta and that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, has over all jurisdiction in Metropolitan areas and that the Court has ample jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Then the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, by making an observation that the previous objection was not complied with and that the complainant contended that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is having jurisdiction over the entire city, called the matter on Bench for hearing. The mater was posted to 03.09.2009. On that day the complainant was absent and there was no representation. Then the matter was posted to 09.09.2009. On that date also the complainant was absent and there was no representation. Hence, the complaint was dismissed. The revision petitioner, who is an Advocate and appearing as party-in-person, submitted that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, is having over all jurisdiction over Hyderabad and Secunderabad Metropolitan area and he cannot dismiss the complaint. He further submitted that even if the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, he ought to have returned the same as provided under Section 201 Cr.P.C. for presentation before the proper Court. In support of his contention he relied on the Full Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported in Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan[1]. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Section 201 Cr.P.C is as follows. “S.201. Procedure by Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of the case.- If the complaint is made to a Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the offence, he shall- (a) if the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect. (b) if the complaint is not in writing, direct the complainant to the proper Court.” Section 201 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that even if the complaint is made to a Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the offence, he shall return it for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect. In this case, the complaint is in writing. Therefore, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ought to have returned it for presentation to the proper Court when he has raised an objection with regard to jurisdiction of his Court over the area in which the offence is alleged to have been committed. On this point alone the revision has to be allowed. However, coming to the question of jurisdiction, Section 8 of Cr.P.C. deals with the metropolitan areas. Section 14 of Cr.P.C is as follows. “S.14. Local jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates.-(1) Subject to the control of the High Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, from time to time, define the local limits of the areas within which the Magistrates appointed under Section 11 or under Section 13 may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may respectively be invested under this Code: Provided that the Court of a Special Judicial Magistrate may hold its sitting at any place within the local area for which it is established. (2) Except as otherwise provided by such definition, the jurisdiction and powers of every such Magistrate shall extend throughout the district. (3) Where the local jurisdiction of a Magistrate, appointed under Section 11 or Section 13 or Section 18, extends to an area beyond the district, or the metropolitan area, as the case may be, in which he ordinarily holds Court, any reference in this Code to the Court of Session, Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall, in relation to such Magistrate, throughout the area within his local jurisdiction, be construed, unless the context otherwise requires, as a reference to the Court of Session, Chief Judicial Magistrate, or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be exercising jurisdiction in relation to the said district or metropolitan area.” Section 15 Cr.P.C is as follows. “S.15. Subordination of Judicial Magistrates.- Every Chief Judicial Magistrate shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judge; and every other Judicial Magistrate shall, subject to the general control of the Sessions Judge, be subordinate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may, from time to time, make rules or give special orders, consistent with this Code, as to the distribution of business among the judicial Magistrates subordinate to him.” Section 16 Cr.P.C is as follows. “S.16. Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates.-(1) In every metropolitan area, there shall be established as many Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates, and at such places, as the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, by notification, specify. (2) The presiding officers of such Courts shall be appointed by the High Court. (3) The jurisdiction and powers of every Metropolitan Magistrate shall extend throughout the metropolitan area.” Sub-section (3) of Section 19 Cr.P.C is as follows. “(3) The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may, from time to time, make rules or give special orders, consistent with this Code, as to the distribution of business among the Metropolitan Magistrates and as to the allocation of business to an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.” While dealing with Sections 14 and 15(2) of Cr.P.C., the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan (1 supra) held as follows. “The Chief Judicial Magistrate is competent to take cognizance of any offence, committed anywhere in his district, notwithstanding the fact that the area in which the offence was committed, happens to fall within the local limits of the area assigned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to some other Judicial Magistrate, subordinate to him, in accordance with the provisions of Ss.14 and 15 Cr.P.C. Of course, taking of such cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate would be possible only if the complaint or police report, as the case may be, is presented in his Court instead of being presented in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the crime might have been committed.” In the light of the above provisions and the judgment, it is clear that the impugned order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, at Nampally, Hyderabad, is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, at Nampally, Hyderabad, with a direction that after hearing the complainant the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders in the matter in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 02.12.2009 Nsr [1] 1985 CRI.L.J. 301