 And the short series by just as Viram Kumar, one goes, as they say, you can have a virtual feeling of the entire knowledge and you can hear him and the another series under the seeds of life law is also continuing where he pitches in his insights and the most fascinating part is that he has that deep knowledge that he can even say that there are deeper dives and these are to be required to be looked into by the various Supreme Court and the high courts on different aspects of law. And that's why we always say on this channel and otherwise also that these are the personal views and one may agree or disagree, but the interesting facet always in the law is that you evolve once you discuss. And that's why if we understand that the power of dissent, why it says that the power of dissenting in by the Supreme Court etc is there, that sometimes that trigger of the mindset actually helps to build the law which eventually is evolved to stay there. That what was evolved earlier is no longer hold to be good. And that's why they say that law is never stagnant. It continues to evolve and involve itself in a different aspects. Justice V. Ram Kumar as we all know that had retired from Kerala High Court and his passion for teaching or making the things think simple and simplified is always well known. The fact that it is so much cherished on the YouTube also shows this thing. And as we said that these are short topics today's cognizance in territorial jurisdiction. And I can say that he has conquered the territories of all hearts who are fascinated towards law. And people take cognizance of what he takes because they believe that what he's teaching and what he's sharing is knowledge. And as they say that he's always on a lot of webinars and otherwise also he says that I'm a student of law who keeps evolving because he believes that as a student you always learn. And the moment you think that you have become mastered that the only way is you can come down because the art of mastery involves that short skills and skills have to continue to evolve. I think that we have talked a lot on this but let's understand the deeper nuances of the cognizance in territorial jurisdiction. Let's hope and we all know that the cobwebs in the mines especially on the legal mines would be removed and we will be having much, much better clear insights and the haziness would also go to you sir. Thank you Mr. Vikas. Good evening friends. You rightly said Mr. Vikas that right to descent itself is a fundamental right. Therefore just because the Amkumar disagrees with the verdict of the Supreme Court or the High Court. There is no reason why everyone of the listeners, everyone of the viewers should also disagree. You have the right to take your own view. I am only applying the law as it is understood by me. Today we have a very important but short subject where it is a frequently asked question whether a magistrate having no territorial jurisdiction to try the case whether such a magistrate can take cognizance of the offense. See whether the power of taking cognizance is linked with the power of trial. That is our question today. Now if you go by the verdict of the Supreme Court in tries and chemical industry versus Rajesh Agarwal. AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3499 rendered by Justice Katie Thomas and Justice M. B. Shah. Justice Katie Thomas authoring the judgment. A magistrate taking cognizance of an offense need not necessarily have the jurisdiction to try the case as well. The apex court in that ruling observed that the provisions of sections 177 and 179 CRPC do not ramble the powers of the court to take cognizance of the offense. But with utmost respect, with the deepest respect for the bench, I have slight disagreement with the view. In fact, according to me, the above verdict overlooks a few sections, a few other important sections in this year. Namely sections 156-1, 157-1, 162-2, 169-170, 173-2-1, section 201 and 204 CRPC. We will take these sections one by one. See, section 156-1 CRPC declared that the territorial jurisdiction of the station house officer SHO is co-extensive with that of the appropriate court which is competent to try the offense. In fact, there is a verdict by, rendered by this humble self in TP Nandakumar versus state of Kerala, 2008 criminal law journal 298 wherein it was so declared. In fact, it was discovered, section 156-1, if you read, you will find that the power of the police station is co-extensive with that of the power of the competent court to try the offense. Now, if you go through chapter 13 of this CRPC, it decides which court shall conduct inquiry and trial in respect of an offense. And the first section, section 177 of chapter 13, declares that ordinarily it is the court within whose territorial limits the offense was committed which has to try the offense. So, if it is the court within the territorial limits of which the offense was committed, then the police station within the territorial limits where the offense was committed also should register the FIR, conduct the investigation, finally submit the charge sheet or final report, police report. Now, if you go to section 157-1, CRPC, it mandates that the SHO, after registering an FIR in respect of a cognizable offense, shall send a report of the same to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offense. That means there is a magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offense, which is actually, which will presently see that it is the magistrate empowered to try the offense, magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offense. That means it doesn't mean that any magistrate can take cognizance of an offense, there is a magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offense. Now, we pass on to section 162, clause 2, CRPC. See, there if you read section 162 clause 2, even when an accused person produced before the nearest magistrate under section 167-1, CRPC, can only give the first remand under section 167-2 CRPC. If such person is to be granted bail, then the nearest magistrate who is not the jurisdiction magistrate cannot grant bail. He has to forward the accused to the magistrate having jurisdiction, jurisdiction to do what, to try the case or to commit the accused for trial. So, when the non-jurisdictional magistrate, which is who is the nearest magistrate before whom an accused is produced after his arrest, then that magistrate can only remand him, first remand for 15 days maximum. Now, after that, before that, if he discovers that he does not have jurisdiction to try the case or commit the case for trial, he has to forward the accused to the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the accused or to commit him for trial. That is the declaration under section 162 to CRPC. Now, we come to section 169, 169 CRPC in a case where it appears to the station of investigating officer that there is no sufficient evidence for reasonable ground of suspicion that to justify the forwarding of the accused to a magistrate. That is after concluding, after concluding the investigation, he finds that there is no justification for forwarding the accused to the nearest magistrate for trial. Then the assertion shall, if the accused is in custody, release him on his executing a bond to appear when so required before a magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offense and try the accused or commit him for trial. Therefore, the investigating officer after conducting investigation finds that there is no case made out for trial of the accused. Then after taking a bond from him, he has to send the bond to the magistrate concerned and he has to tell the accused that I am releasing you. But in case of necessity, you may have to appear before the magistrate entitled to or empowered to take cognizance of the offense and try the accused, try you. You see the wordings of section 169. Likewise, section 170 clause 1, 170 clause 1 envisages a situation where after concluding the investigation, the magistrate finds that there is a case for placing the accused for trial before the magistrate. Then as soon as the investigation where you see the magistrate find that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion, then the investigating officer shall forward the accused under custody to a magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offense and try the accused or commit him for trial. So he can also, even where the investigating officer decides to forward the accused to the magistrate for trial, he has to forward him to that magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance of an and try the accused or commit him for trial. And supposing it is a case punishable exclusively tribal by a court of session, then it cannot be straight away sent to the court of session. The magistrate competed to commit the case to the court of session will have to deal with the case. Therefore, the police officer will have to forward the accused to the magistrate empowered to commit the accused for trial before the court of session. In fact, that magistrate can grant bail also. He has the jurisdiction to grant bail except in a case falling under the two clauses 1 and 2 of section 49001 CRPC unless the case attracts the provisos 1 and 2 of section 49001 CRPC. We are not concerned with that for the time being. Then we come to section 1732 CRPC. 1732 clause 1 CRPC. As soon as investigation is completed, the S H O shall forward the match to the magistrate forward the accused to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of an offense on a police report. A report in the form prescribed incorporating the details enumerated under section 1732 1 CRPC will also be that report will contain these matters. Therefore, after the investigation, if the investigating officer discovers that this is the case where he has to be taken, he has to be tried for the offense. Then he has to forward the accused along with the report with the accused in custody. Of course, there is another case law on that point. Accused to the magistrate empowered to try the accused or commit him for trial. Such magistrate alone can take cognizance of an offense, mind you. Then we come to another important section, section 201 CRPC. In the case of a private complaint also section 201 CRPC envisages a situation where a complaint is made to a magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of an offense. Complaint is wrongly made to a magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of an offense. There is a magistrate competent to take cognizance of an offense. If the complaint is in writing, section 201 CRPC A obliges the magistrate to return the complaint for presentation before the proper court. If the complaint is in writing, return complaint. If the complaint is an oral complaint, then section 201 CRPC B obliges the magistrate to direct the complaint, complainant to the proper court. Therefore, even in the case of a private complaint, the complaint is wrongly filed before a court, before a magistrate not entitled to take cognizance of an offense. The magistrate had to return the complaint or forward the complaint to the magistrate having jurisdiction. Then comes section 201 CRPC. It is the magistrate taking cognizance of an offense and who is entitled to form an opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further in the matter who can issue summons or warrant as the case may be to the acute. Then section 204 thus also contemplates a situation where process to an acute can be issued only by magistrate having the jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offense. Going by section 177 CRPC, every offense shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by the court within whose local jurisdiction the offense was committed. Therefore, apart from section 177 CRPC, there are sections 178 to 188 CRPC which will also have to be referred to for deciding the jurisdiction of the court competent to conduct inquiry or trial. So to sum up, by summing up I would say it is only a magistrate who has the jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offense who can conduct an inquiry or trial as provided under chapter 13 CRPC. In tri-sense chemical industry that is AER 1999, Supreme Court 3499, if that is to be followed, then a magistrate of the first class in Cochin or in Trivandrum can take cognizance of an offense committed far away in Delhi, New Delhi. Supposing the offense is committed far away in New Delhi, a magistrate in Trivandrum or Kanyakumari in Tamil Nadu can take cognizance of an offense going by this ruling. But such a magistrate will not be the magistrate entitled to take cognizance of an offense and try the case within the meaning of the sections which we have referred to above. I am therefore the considered opinion that tri-sense chemical industry requires a reconsideration at the hands of a larger bench of the Supreme Court of India. Of course any of you is entitled to disagree with me, but this is what I find after applying these sections. The magistrate competent to take cognizance of an offense should be competent to try the offense as well. Otherwise, think of the situation of an offense committed in Chandigarh. Can a magistrate in Trivandrum take cognizance of an offense and who will try the case? Trivandrum magistrate, what all difficulties, what all language barrier is there? Officer cannot question, interrogate witnesses. All those difficulties will be there. That is why the code has very advisedly incorporated all these requirements in the respective sections. Therefore, in my humble opinion, that decision may require reconsideration. Thank you, brother. Thank you, friends. That's all for today. I have just received a message on the YouTube where Mr. Saini says I am a big fan of Justice B. Ramakumar. Another says I am watching this channel for the first time. I can't believe that you are in front of us. Only he knows you, some A1. That's the power and as Justice Ramakumar said that once you start rubbing the brain and then the best of the things turn out, we hope and as he has rightly said it's not necessary what ideas he is dwelling upon not only in this session but otherwise also. That should be the law, the manner in which he thinks. But they say that it's always the best men can think alike and the best men can also differ. And that is the essence of law and we believe that it will continue to evolve. It's not as if those two judges are bad judges. They are great judges. They have contributed substantially to the progress of the criminal law in the country. But of course, anybody can commit mistakes. There can be an overstatement of the law knowingly or unknowingly. Certainly it is not with any oblique motive. They are laying down the law and think of the docket explosion before them. They also say that it is the nature of assistance also given. That also depends. Yes, they are all great judges. But I don't want to say that just because there is some overstatement of the law. They have laid down the law, bad law. No, it's not so. They are great judges. They have contributed their might to the development of the criminal law in the country. That's what we are saying. Even what we are saying may not actually be there. There can always be variation. The law may still cut into it. Exactly. I do confess that even I may be wrong. My view may be wrong. It is always what type of prism you are thinking and what type of manner you are thinking. Sometimes, sir, I am sharing with you. Sometimes you read a judgment with the head notes and you feel this is a judgment. Sometimes once that judgment is referred in some other judgment, then you realize that this is also a facet given in that particular judgment. Exactly. So that's what we say that we should always push the envelope of mind thinking and that's the way of evolving. Thank you everyone. Stay safe. Stay blessed. And we will keep on sharing the knowledge. We have asked him to also share knowledge on the Muslim law etc. There is a epitome of knowledge in different perspectives. Thank you. We will see the civilized version of Justice Ramadhan in that case. Let us see. Let us see. I am getting slowly civilized. Thank you sir.