Wrong statutory citation does not invalidate a valid transfer order where the authority had power to make over the case.

A transfer order made by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge was valid because he had competence to make over sessions cases, even though the order cited the wrong statutory provision. A mere incorrect recital of the source of power did not vitiate an otherwise sustainable order, and the receiving VIth Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge therefore had jurisdiction to try the case. The High Court was wrong to set aside the conviction on that jurisdictional ground, and the conviction and sentence stood.

---

---

Issues: Whether the VIth Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to try the sessions case where the order making over the case was recited under the wrong provision, and whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction on that ground.

Analysis: The transfer order made by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge was within his competence under the provision empowering him to make over sessions cases, though it incorrectly referred to another provision. A mere wrong recital of the source of power does not invalidate an order that is otherwise sustainable under the correct statutory provision. The relevant order had to be read as one made under the proper provision authorising the making over of the case, and the receiving Sessions Judge therefore had jurisdiction to try it.

Conclusion: The High Court was wrong in holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The conviction and sentence could not be set aside on that ground, and the appeal by the State succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: An order made by a competent authority is not invalid merely because it cites the wrong statutory provision, if it can be supported under the correct provision conferring the power.

---