Skip to content


Madhu Sudan Pal Vs. Narayan Chandra Dutta - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject;Criminal
CourtGuwahati High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantMadhu Sudan Pal
RespondentNarayan Chandra Dutta
Excerpt:
- .....is an application under section 561-a, criminal p.c., to direct shri w.u. mullah (magistrate first class, sadar) to pronounce judgment in cr case no. 481 of 1964 on his life.2. the petitioner lodged complaint before the s.d.m., sadar on 24.8.64 in cr case no. 431 of 1964. on 27.8.64 the case was sent to the c.o. sri d.r. chakraborty for enquiry and report by 11.9.64. on 11.9.64 the report was not received and a reminder was issued for the same. on 6.10.64 the magistrate passed an order that shri a.t. dutta, magistrate first class should hold enquiry by 2.11.64. the magistrate examined witnesses and returned the record to the s.d.m. on 2.11.64 stating that a prima facie case was established against the respondent. on 5.11.64, the case was registered under sections 504 and 426, i.p.c., and.....
Judgment:

C. Jagannadhacharyulu, J.C.

1. This is an application under Section 561-A, Criminal P.C., to direct Shri W.U. Mullah (Magistrate first class, Sadar) to pronounce judgment in CR case No. 481 of 1964 on his life.

2. The petitioner lodged complaint before the S.D.M., Sadar on 24.8.64 in CR case No. 431 of 1964. On 27.8.64 the case was sent to the C.O. Sri D.R. Chakraborty for enquiry and report by 11.9.64. On 11.9.64 the report was not received and a reminder was issued for the same. On 6.10.64 the Magistrate passed an order that Shri A.T. Dutta, Magistrate first class should hold enquiry by 2.11.64. The Magistrate examined witnesses and returned the record to the S.D.M. on 2.11.64 stating that a prima facie case was established against the respondent. On 5.11.64, the case was registered under Sections 504 and 426, I.P.C., and the respondent was summoned in C.R. case No. 481 of 1964 by the S.D.M., Sadar. Subsequently the case was transferred to to Jonab W.U. Mullah, Magistrate first class, Sadar, for trial.

3. Jonab W.U. Mullah framed charges under Sections 504 and 447, I.P.C., on 5.2.65. He recorded the statement of the represented of 3.6.65. He examined witnesses until 16.10.65. He heard arguments from 5.12.65 to 9.12.65. But till now there is no judgment.

4. The learned Magistrate was asked to explain why he did not pronounce judgment for a period of about 1 year and 9 months. He states in his explanation that the record was mislaid and that it was removed from the almirah only on 27.9.67. This explanation does not appear to be true, because the petitioner's Counsel stated that some dates for delivering the judgment were given and that the petitioner was attending the Court on all the dates to hear the judgment. But he was returning home disappointed, after wasting his time in the Court. This kind of work should be stopped at once. In all criminal cases, judgment must be delivered within 3 or 4 days in the maximum, after the arguments are heard.

5. The Magistrate concerned is directed to rehear the arguments and dispose of the case within one week and report having done so to this Court through the District Magistrate. A copy of this order is forwarded to the District Magistrate for taking necessary action against the Magistrate and the Bench clerk and to submit his report to this Court within one month. He should issue a circular to all criminal Courts that they should not take more than 3 or 4 days for pronouncing judgments in criminal cases.


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