Skip to content


Amulya Chandra Paul Vs. the State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject;Criminal
CourtGuwahati High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantAmulya Chandra Paul
RespondentThe State
Prior history
T.N.R. Tirumalpad, J.C.
1. The petitioner herein is an accused in C. R. Case No. 264 of 1960 before Shri K. P. Dutta, first class Magistrate, Sadar. The case was originally pending before the S.D.M., Sadar and it was transferred to Shri K. P. Dutta on 25-3-63. On 20-4-63 Shri K. P, Dutta examined one P. W. and posted it to 5-6-63 for further hearing. Then the petitioner preferred a revision petition to the Sessions Judge for referring the matter to this Court challenging the competency of Shri
Excerpt:
- .....posted it to 5-6-63 for further hearing. then the petitioner preferred a revision petition to the sessions judge for referring the matter to this court challenging the competency of shri k. p. dutta to try the case. but the sessions judge refused to make a reference and dismissed the revision petition. thereupon the petitioner has filed the present revision petition to set aside the order of the learned sessions judge and to declare that shri k. p. dutta is not competent to try the case.2. the contention of the petitioner is that shri k. p. dutta had ceased to be a magistrate when this case was transferred to him and that therefore he is incompetent to try the case. to deal with this argument, it is necessary to refer to some notifications. shri k. p. dutta was first appointed on.....
Judgment:

T.N.R. Tirumalpad, J.C.

1. The petitioner herein is an accused in C. R. Case No. 264 of 1960 before Shri K. P. Dutta, first class Magistrate, Sadar. The case was originally pending before the S.D.M., Sadar and it was transferred to Shri K. P. Dutta on 25-3-63. On 20-4-63 Shri K. P, Dutta examined one P. W. and posted it to 5-6-63 for further hearing. Then the petitioner preferred a revision petition to the Sessions Judge for referring the matter to this Court challenging the competency of Shri K. P. Dutta to try the case. But the Sessions Judge refused to make a reference and dismissed the revision petition. Thereupon the petitioner has filed the present revision petition to set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge and to declare that Shri K. P. Dutta is not competent to try the case.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that Shri K. P. Dutta had ceased to be a magistrate when this case was transferred to him and that therefore he is incompetent to try the case. To deal with this argument, it is necessary to refer to some notifications. Shri K. P. Dutta was first appointed on 15-1-1954 as a temporary A.S.D.O. Sadar by the following notification:

Shri Kali Prasanna Dutta, B.L., Advocate. Bar Association, Agartala, is temporarily appointed as Additional Sub-Divisional Officer on a pay of Rs. 200/- p.m. in the scale of Rs. 200-10-420-15-450/- with Dearness Allowance, as admissible under the rules for the period upto 28th February, 1954.

He is to report for duty at once. He will be dealing with the cases of Sadar Sub-Division.' On the same day there was another notification as follows:

In exercise of the powers conferred by Sec tion 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //