ORDER King, J.
1. The accused are charged with an offence under Section 5 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1928. The marriage was solemnized at Ramgarh in the Azamgarh district. The offence of performing, conducting or directing the child marriage was therefore committed in the Azamgarh district, and under Section 177, cr. P.C., the offence must ordinarily be tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed.
2. It is suggested that the case is also triable in the Benares district because the tilak ceremony took place in that district, and in view of the provisions of Section 179, Cr. P.C. In my opinion Section 179 has no application to the facts of the case. The accused are not charged with the commission of an offence by reason of having performed the tilak ceremony nor can the marriage be properly called a "consequence" of the tilak ceremony.
3. Section 182 also does not apply. The alleged offence, if committed, was certainly committed in the Azamgarh district. The tilak ceremony may be regarded as a necessary preliminary to the marriage ceremony, but the actual marriage is a ceremony quite different and distinct from the tilak ceremony. The ceremonies were performed at different times and at different places. For the purpose of Section 5 of the Act it is only the marriage ceremony that has to be considered. It is quite immaterial whose or when or by whom the tilak ceremony was performed.
4. I think it is perfectly clear that the Courts of the Benares district have no jurisdiction to try the case.
5. Under Section 185(1) I direct that the case be tried by a Court within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed, i.e., by a Court within whose jurisdiction Ramgarh, district Azamgarh, is situated.