Skip to content


Kishori Lal and anr. Vs. King-emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928All546
AppellantKishori Lal and anr.
RespondentKing-emperor
Excerpt:
- .....shall have equal authority in withdrawing cases from a subordinate magistrate and that the district magistrate shall not exercise powers of an appellate court as regards orders passed by the sub-divisional magistrate. it is laid down there that any district magistrate or sub-divisional magistrate, may withdraw any case from or recall any case which he has made over to any magistrate subordinate to him and make inquiry into, or try, such case himself or refer it for inquiry or trial to any other such. magistrate competent to inquire into or try the same. in the present case the sub-divisional magistrate transferred the hearing of a case from the court of the tahsildar of kasganj to the court of pandit manna lal, deputy magistrate. lalman thereupon applied to the district.....
Judgment:

Dalal, J.

1. The provisions of Section 528(2), Criminal P.C., appear to provide that the District Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall have equal authority in withdrawing cases from a Subordinate Magistrate and that the District Magistrate shall not exercise powers of an appellate Court as regards orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. It is laid down there that any District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate, may withdraw any case from or recall any case which he has made over to any Magistrate subordinate to him and make inquiry into, or try, such case himself or refer it for inquiry or trial to any other such. Magistrate competent to inquire into or try the same. In the present case the Sub-Divisional Magistrate transferred the hearing of a case from the Court of the Tahsildar of Kasganj to the Court of Pandit Manna Lal, Deputy Magistrate. Lalman thereupon applied to the District Magistrate, who, without issuing notice to the accused, cancelled the order of transfer, and directed that the file be returned to the Court of the Tahsildar of Kasganj for decision. If Lalman had any objection to the Court of Mr. Manna Lal he would certainly have been entitled to apply to the District Magistrate for a transfer from that Court. The District Magistrate did not pass orders on 22nd December from that point of view. What he did was to hear the application as an appeal from the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. He was of opinion that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not justified and was liable to reversal. Such power of reversal is not given to the District Magistrate under the law. If he had considered the Court of Mr. Manna Lal not the proper Court for the trial of the case for reasons to be stated by him and transferred the case to the Tahsildar of Kasganj there would have been nothing to object to in his order, provided it had been passed after notice to the accused. This view is supported by a ruling of a single Judge of the Madras High Court in Raghunatha v. Emperor [1903] 26 Mad. 130. The order of the District Magistrate dated 22nd December 1927 was passed without jurisdiction and is hereby set aside. The order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 14th December 1927 is restored, and the case shall be tried by the Court of Pandit Manna Lal or his successor if he has left the district.


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