1982 P Cr (PLP)

(b) Criminal Proct0ure Code (V of 1898)‑-- ‑‑ Ss. 179 & M1 read with Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S. 6 (5) ‑ Territorial jurisdiction ‑ Second marriage by accused respondent contracted in District B without permission of Arbitration Council of District G, competent to grant such permission‑Magistrates of both Districts B and G, held, pos sessed jurisdiction to try case against offender, in circumstances. [Jurisdiction]. Waheedud. Din Virk for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent No.

1. Altaf Muhammad Khan for the State. Date of hearing : 14th June, 1982. Mst. Sardar Begum moved a complaint against Malik Muhammad Khan respondent No. 1 seeking his prosecution for marrying again during the continuance of the first marriage without proper permission. The complaint was rejected by Mr. Muhammad Ejaz Mirza Magistrate 1st Class Gujranwala vide his order dated 10th July, 1980, resulting in the acquittal of Malik Muhammad Khan respondent. It has been held by the trial Court that under section 11 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordi nance 1961, a Court can take cognizance only on .a complaint in writing by the Union Council and since the present complaint had not been moved by the Union Council, the Court could not take cognizance of the complaint. Secondly, it has been held that the trial Court did not have the territorial jurisdiction as the second marriage took place in Ahmadpur East, District Bahawalpur.

2. As regards the competence of the Court to take cognizance on the complaint in writing by the Union Council, it has escaped the notice of the trial Court that the law was amended on 26th November, 1976, substituting aggrieved party for the Union Council at whose instance cognizance could be taken by the Court: The trial Court, has, therefore, A erred in holding that the Court was forbidden from taking cognizance of the case as the complaint had not been made by the Union Council. As regards the territorial jurisdiction, it is true that under section 177 of the Cr. P. C. an offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed, but a Court where part of the offence has been committed is also competent to take cognizance of an offence even through a part of the offence has been committed in the territorial jurisdiction of another Court. Under section 6 (5), of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 an offence is committed when a man contracts another marriage without the permission of the Arbitration Council. This means that contracting of a second marriage and the absence of the permission of the Arbitration Council are two important ingredients of the offence. In the present case the marriage was contracted in Ahmadpur East District Bahawalpur, without the permission of the Arbitration Council in District Gujranwala. Under sections 179 & 180 of the Cr. P. C. the Magistrate both of Bahawalpur and Gujranwala Districts will have the jurisdiction to try these cases. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has produced a photo copy of a judgment of the Dacca High Court in the case of Abu Sufian v. Nurjahan Begum (1966) 18 D L R 230), in order to show that it was only the Court at Bahawalpur which has the jurisdiction and not the one at Gujranwala. With utmost respect to the Honourable Judge, I am of the view that the/ provisions of sections 179 & .180, of the Cr. P. C. were not brought to the notice of the honourable Judge.

3. In view of the above considerations, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of 10th July, 1980 of the learned Magistrate 1st Class Gujranwala is set aside and the case is remanded for fresh decision on merits. The District Magistrate Gujranwala may entrust the case to any Magistrate of competent jurisdiction for trial. Case remanded.