Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Govind Sahai and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1915)ILR37All20
AppellantEmperor
RespondentGovind Sahai and anr.
Excerpt:
.....an appeal against an order of a magistrate of the second class of the same district requiring the applicants to give security for their good behaviour for one year. on both these grounds i hold that captain noel had no jurisdiction to pass an order requiring the applicants to give security for their good behaviour......to give security for their good behaviour for one year. the first point taken is that the second class magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear the case. it appears that the proceedings against the applicants were instituted by a magistrate of the first class, and that this court, on application made to it, transferred the case from the court of that magistrate to the district magistrate with instructions to make it over to some other magistrate, subordinate to him, competent to try it. the district magistrate then made over the case to captain noel, a magistrate of the second class. under section 526 of the code of criminal procedure this court had power to transfer the case to another criminal court of equal or superior jurisdiction. this court, therefore, could not have transferred.....
Judgment:

Chamier, J.

1. This is an application for revision of an order of the District Magistrate of Meerut, dismissing an appeal against an order of a magistrate of the second class of the same district requiring the applicants to give security for their good behaviour for one year. The first point taken is that the second class magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear the case. It appears that the proceedings against the applicants were instituted by a magistrate of the first class, and that this Court, on application made to it, transferred the case from the Court of that magistrate to the District Magistrate with instructions to make it over to some other magistrate, subordinate to him, competent to try it. The District Magistrate then made over the case to Captain Noel, a magistrate of the second class. Under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure this Court had power to transfer the case to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction. This Court, therefore, could not have transferred the case to Captain Noel and what this Court could not do the District Magistrate could not do. The selection of the court was left to him, but the transfer was made by this Court. Further, it appears to me that Captain Noel is not one of the magistrates who is competent to conduct proceedings under Sections 110 to 119 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I was referred to the decision of Mr. Justice Aikman in the case of King-Emperor v. Munna (1901) I.L.R. 24 All. 151 in which proceedings under Section 107(2) of the Code had been initiated by a District Magistrate who was competent to do so and had been transferred by him to a magistrate of the first class subordinate to him in the district. Mr. Justice Aikman held that when the District Magistrate had in the exercise of the discretion directed the institution of the proceeding, there was nothing in the law to prevent him from transferring the case to another magistrate otherwise qualified to complete the proceedings. There the transfer was to a Magistrate of the first class competent to conduct proceedings under Section 107(1) of the Code. I do not think that Mr. Justice Aikman would have held that the District Magistrate was competent to transfer the case to a Magistrate of the third class. On both these grounds I hold that Captain Noel had no jurisdiction to pass an order requiring the applicants to give security for their good behaviour. I, therefore, set aside all the proceedings of Captain Noel and of the District Magistrate. Let the record be returned.


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