Skip to content


Venkangouda Rangangouda Rangangoundar and ors. Vs. Virabhadrappa Parappa Angadi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1976CriLJ572
AppellantVenkangouda Rangangouda Rangangoundar and ors.
RespondentVirabhadrappa Parappa Angadi
Excerpt:
.....the district judges shall fill up and submit in duplicate form part a in respect of himself to the high court by 31st january each year for taking further action by the high court. in the instant case, the petitioner who was a district judge had not submitted form part a to the high court. in the absence of form part a by the petitioner, the recording of adverse remarks in his confidential record by then chief justice is contrary to notification dated 15.11.1988. therefore, the impugned communication of adverse remarks are liable to be quashed. -- karnataka judicial services (recruitment) rules, 1983. rule 3(2): [h.n. nagamohan das, j] rules regulating the conditions of service - petitioners prayer for quashing the communication, the adverse remarks recorded in the confidential record..........in this petition, the order dated 10-7-1975, passed by the incharge judicial magistrate, first. class. kundgol in criminal case no. 144 of 1975. taking cognizance of the offences under sections 352 and 506 read with section .34. i, p.c. is challenged on the ground that the discharge judicial magistrate had no power to entertain the complaint and take cognizance of the offences.2. the necessary facts may be briefly narrated as follows: sri s. s. shrikhande was the munsiff and j. m. f. c. kundgol, during the months of june and july 1975. he was granted commuted leave for 26 days, with effect from 16-6-1975 upto .fl 1-7-1975. the high court issued the notification dated 26th june, 1975, placing the ii additional munsiff and j. m. f. c, iii court, hubli, in charge of the current duties of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

M.S. Nesargi, J.

1. In this petition, the order dated 10-7-1975, passed by the incharge Judicial Magistrate, First. Class. Kundgol in Criminal Case No. 144 of 1975. taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 352 and 506 read with Section .34. I, P.C. is challenged on the ground that the discharge Judicial Magistrate had no power to entertain the complaint and take cognizance of the offences.

2. The necessary facts may be briefly narrated as follows: Sri S. S. Shrikhande was the Munsiff and J. M. F. C. Kundgol, during the months of June and July 1975. He was granted commuted leave for 26 days, with effect from 16-6-1975 upto .fl 1-7-1975. The High Court issued the notification dated 26th June, 1975, placing the II Additional Munsiff and J. M. F. C, III Court, Hubli, in charge of the current duties of the Court of the Munsiff & J. M. F. C, Kundgol, during the leave'period of Sri S. S. Shrikande. On 10-7-1.975 respondent Virabhadrappa Parappa Angadi, filed a complaint before the said incharge Magistrate, Kundgol, alleging that the petitioners had commit-ed offences under Sections 352 and 506 ' read with Section 34, I. P.C. The incharge Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and issued Process against the petitioners. That is the order in question.

3. Shri B. V. Deshpande. learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, urged that the II Additional Munsiff and J. M. F. C. Ill Court. Hubli, was by virtue of the notification.issued,by the High Court on 26th June 1975, placed incharge of only the current duties of the Munsiff and J. M. F. C., Kundgol, hence he had no power to discharge statutory functions of the Magistrate of the Court at Kundgol and as such, he could t, not have, in law, entertained the complaint filed by the respondent, taken cognizance of the offences and issued process. , He, on this basis argued that the order in question has been passed by the incharge Magistrate without any power, and therefore it has to be quashed.

4. Shri K. A. Swami, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, urged that entertaining of complaints and taking cognizance of offences also fall within the ambit of the words 'current duties' and as such, the order in question is valid in law. He nextly urged that when the High Court, by its notification dated 26th June 1975 placed the II Additional Munsiff and J. M. F. C, HI Court, Hubli, incharge of the Court of the Munsiff and J. M. F. C. at Kundgol, may be for discharging the current duties, only, it must be understood that by the. said notification, the local limits of the areas within which the II Additional Munsiff and J. M. F. C. HI Court, Hubli, exercised his powers were redefined, so as, to include the local limits., of the a?eas falling within the jurisdiction of the Court of the J. M. F. C, at Kundgol. His contention in other words is that the not section in question is a notification issued by the High Court under Section 11 (1) of the Criminal P.C.

5. The notification in question reads as follows:

No. G. O. 382/75 High Court of Karnataka Bangalore

Dated: 26th June 1975.

NOTIFICATION

Shri S. S. Shrikande, Munsiff and J. M. F. C, Kundgol is granted commuted-leave for 26 days with effect from 16-6;-1975 to 11-7-1975 (both days'-inclusive? with permission to prefix the holidays on' 14th and 15th June 1975 and suffix' general holidays on 12th and 13th July 1975:'

The II Addl. Munsiff & J. M. F. III Court, Hubli, has been placed incharpfe' of the current duties of the Court of Munsiff & J. M. F. C. Kundgol during the above leave period in addition to his own duties.

Shri S. S. Shrikande, Munsiff and J. M. F. C. Kundgol is reposted to the, post on expiry of the leave.

By order of the High Court,

Sd/- P.S. Bhat,

Registrar.

A plain reading of this notification discloses that the II Additional Munsiff and' J. Mi F. C., Ill Court, Hubli,' was placed in- charge of the current duties of the Court of the Munsiff and J. M. F. C, Kundgol, during the leave period of Sri S. S. Shrikande and that too, in addition to his own duties. It has nothing to do with denning of the local limits of the areas within which Shri S. Indudhar, the II Additional Munsiff and J. M. F. C, HI Court, Hubli, was exercising powers under the Code. In this connection, it is worthwhile noticing Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 9 of Criminal P.C.

They read as follows:

9 (4) The Sessions Judge of one Sessions Division may be appointed by the High Court to be also an Additional Sessions Judge of another division, and in such case he may sit for the disposal of cases at such place or places in the other. division as the High Court may direet.

(5) Where the office of the Sessions Judge is vacant, the High Court may make arrangements for the disposal of any urgent application which is, or may be made or pending before such Court of Session by an Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, or, if there be no Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, by a Chief Judicial Magistrate, in the Sessions Division; and every such Judge or Magistrate shall have jurisdiction to deal with any such application.

6. By virtue of Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Code, the State Government establishes a Court of Session for every sessions division. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 9. the High Court appoints the Sessions Judge to preside over such Court of Session. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 9, the High Court appoints Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges also if necessary to exercise jurisdiction of such a Court of Session. Similarly, under Section 11 (1). the State Government establishes after consultation with the High Court, as many Courts of Judicial Magistrates of the first class etc., as is deemed necessary. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 11, the High Court appoints the presiding officers, namely, Judicial Magistrates, first class, of such Courts. But, there are no provisions similar to Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 9 in Section 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Sub-section (4) of Section 9, the High Court gets power to appoint a Sessions Judge of one division as an Additional Sessions Judge of another division also. In the absence of such a power under Section 11, the High Court cannot appoint a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, of one Court as Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, of Another Court. The contention of Shri K. A. Swami In this connection that because under Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court has power to appoint a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, of a Court established under Sub-section (1) of Section 11, it must be deemed that the High Court has also the power to appoint the same Magistrate as an Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, of another Court, cannot be countenanced.

7. Under Sub-section (5) of Section 9 of the Code, the High Court has power to make arrangements for disposal of any urgent application where the office of the Sessions Judge falls vacant. In the absence of a similar provision in Section 11 or Section 14 of the Code, it is not possible to hold that the High Court can make similar arrangements for disposal of urgent applications where the office of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, falls vacant. Whether the High Court can make arrangements in regard to current administrative duties only by placing a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, appointed to another Court incharge of such a Court need not be, in my opinion, gone into. Hence the contention of Shri Swami that 'current duties' Include entertaining of complaints and of taking cognizance of offences also does not survive.

8. Now I proceed to deal with Shri Swami's contention that the notification in question should be considered as having been issued by the High Court under Section 14 (1) of Criminal P.C. Section 14 (1) of the Code reads as follows:

14 (1) Subject to the control of the High Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, from time to time, define the local limits of the areas within which the Magistrates appointed under Section 11 or under Section 13 may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may respectively be invested under this Code.

As has been already pointed out, the notification does not at all deal with the topic of defining of the local limits of the areas within which the II Additional Munsiff and J. M. F. C. III Court. Hubll, was to exercise his powers. In fact, the local limits of the areas within which the Munsiff and J. M. F. C. Kundgol and the II Additional Munsiff and J. M. F. C. III Court, Hubll, were exercising their powers have been left intact by the notification as the notification specifically states that the II Additional Munsiff and J. M. F. C. III Court, Hubli. was to be incharge of the current duties of the Court of the Munsiff and J. M. F. C. Kundgol. Therefore, it is not possible to accede to the contention of Sri Swami.

9. The Chief Judicial Magistrate of a district has jurisdiction throughout the district. Therefore, under the contingencies contemplated by Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 9. but in regard to Judicial Magistrates, First Class, the Chief Judicial Magistrate would have power to attend to the work of the concerned Courts. This clearly is the reason why provisions similar to Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 9 are not found in Section 11 of Criminal P.C.

10. Hence, I hold that the II Additional Munsiff and' J. M. F. C. Ill Court, Hubble did not at all have, in spite of the notification issued by this High Court as cited above, the necessary power to take cognizance of offences arising out of the local limits of the areas falling within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kundgol. It is undisputed that the offences in question had arisen in the local limits of the areas within the jurisdiction of the Court of the J. M. F. C., Kundgol. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the order dated 10-7-1975 passed by the incharge Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kundgol, in Criminal Case No. 144 of 1975 is set aside. It is open to the regularly appointed Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kundgol. to proceed in the matter as if the complaint of the complainant has been for the first time presented before him.


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