TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Chief Presidency Magistrate's Territorial Jurisdiction Confirmed; High Court Can Transfer Cases</h1> <h3>Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Madras Versus Md. Ismail Sahib and Ors.</h3> Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Madras Versus Md. Ismail Sahib and Ors. - AIR 1960 Mad 64 Issues Involved:1. Territorial jurisdiction of the Chief Presidency Magistrate.2. Power of the High Court to transfer cases to the appropriate court.3. Applicability of Sections 346(1) and 526(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).Detailed Analysis:1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Chief Presidency Magistrate:The accused raised a preliminary objection that the Chief Presidency Magistrate's court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the cases, as the factories were situated within the jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Poonamallee. The High Court examined whether the Chief Presidency Magistrate had territorial jurisdiction. It was observed that the general common law rule is that the debtor must seek the creditor, and the Employees' State Insurance Act required contributions to be paid to the Corporation at its office in Madras. Consequently, the Chief Presidency Magistrate had jurisdiction to try the cases as the obligation to pay contributions and submit returns to the Corporation's office in Madras was not negated by the facility to make payments at mofussil centers.2. Power of the High Court to Transfer Cases:The High Court addressed whether it could transfer cases from the Chief Presidency Magistrate to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Poonamallee, if the former had no territorial jurisdiction. The court referred to various precedents, including ILR 36 Mad 387 and ILR 9 All 191, which suggested that proceedings initiated in a court without jurisdiction could not be transferred to another court. However, the court distinguished between cases void ab initio and those merely irregular. It concluded that the High Court has the power under Section 526(1) Cr.P.C. to transfer cases to a court of competent jurisdiction if it serves the ends of justice or the convenience of parties and witnesses.3. Applicability of Sections 346(1) and 526(1) of the Cr.P.C.:The court examined the scope of Sections 346(1) and 526(1) Cr.P.C. Section 346(1) allows a magistrate to submit a case to another magistrate if he finds he lacks jurisdiction. Section 526(1) empowers the High Court to transfer cases to any court not empowered under Sections 177 to 184 Cr.P.C. but otherwise competent to try the case. The court held that Section 346(1) is broad enough to include cases of want of territorial jurisdiction and that Section 526(1) allows the High Court to confer jurisdiction on a court lacking local jurisdiction but competent otherwise.Conclusion:The Full Bench concluded that the Chief Presidency Magistrate had territorial jurisdiction to try the cases. Additionally, even if the Chief Presidency Magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction, the High Court could transfer the cases to the appropriate court under Section 526(1) Cr.P.C. The decisions in ILR 36 Mad 387 and related cases, to the extent they conflicted with this interpretation, were not considered sound law. The trials should proceed before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, confirming the High Court's earlier direction.
TaxTMI 