Skip to content


Sital Pande Vs. Emperor Through Nihal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1919All29; 58Ind.Cas.681
AppellantSital Pande
RespondentEmperor Through Nihal and ors.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 526 - application for transfer--magistrate displeased, whether sufficient ground for transfer. - .....has issued the requisition and. i also doubt very much indeed, whether under section 526 of the code of criminal procedure i have power to transfer this proceeding. it is not an enquiry and it is not a trial. there is no offense. what the magistrate appears to be intending; is to prevent an offense being committees within his jurisdiction. but, over and above these two objections which appear, on the face of the proceeding, sufficient cause has not been shown to me that a fair and impartial enquiry or trial cannot be had before this first class magistrate. it seems to mo, after hearing the argument, that the applicant has been offended by certain applications of his having been returned to him and from the magistrate's refusal to receive applications he apprehends that the magistrate.....
Judgment:

George Knox, J.

1. This is an application for transfer of what is called a Criminal Case No. 177-11 of 1919 from the Court of a Magistrate of the First Class of Basti to that to any other Magistrate in the District. The application is supported by an affidavit. It is alleged in the so-sailed affidavit that the Magistrate, without hearing any of the applicant's witnesses and without any case being instituted under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, has called upon the applicant to show cause why he should not be required to file a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000 with two sureties in the sum of its 500 each, but the other side have been required by the said Court to show cause why they should not be required to ale a personal bond for Rs. 500 each with two sureties in the gum of Rs. 250 each for one year. The applicant proceeds to say that this Magistrate hap, on various occasions, shown by his attitude that he is displeased with the applicant and many times when he has gone to file some applications he has turned the applicant out of Court and refused to receive his applications and threatened to send the applicant to jail. That, on three occasions, dates specified, the applicant made application a before the aforesaid Magistrate but he refused to take them. That the Magistrate has been threatening to send the applicant to jail and has been expressing his displeasure in various ways, such ways are not specified, and has started proceedings against the applicant under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. I understand, then, by this application that what the applicant wants transferred is the requisition of the Magistrate under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code that the applicant shall show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for keeping the peace. Now, the only person who can deal with proceedings of this kind, Section 107, Clause 2, are proceedings where the person informed against (apparently the applicant in the present case) or the place where breach of the peace is apprehended is within the local limits of such Magistrate's jurisdiction] is the Magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the applicant resides. In the argument addressed to me I have been more than once informed that the Magistrate who issued the requisition is the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. I have not been informed either by the affidavit or elsewhere that there is any other Magistrate who ban jurisdiction in this Sub-Division except the Magistrate who has issued the requisition and. I also doubt very much indeed, whether under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure I have power to transfer this proceeding. It is not an enquiry and it is not a trial. There is no offense. What the Magistrate appears to be intending; is to prevent an offense being committees within his jurisdiction. But, over and above these two objections which appear, on the face of the proceeding, sufficient cause has not been shown to me that a fair and impartial enquiry or trial cannot be had before this First Class Magistrate. It seems to mo, after hearing the argument, that the applicant has been offended by certain applications of his having been returned to him and from the Magistrate's refusal to receive applications he apprehends that the Magistrate is displeased with him and that the matter will not be impartially enquired into. The learned Vakil who appeared for the applicant put forward what he says were explanations furnished by the Magistrate concerned. How the said Vakil got hold of these I do not know but I do not think that the matter specified in the affidavit amounts to more than exaggerated language. For all these reason, I am Dot prepared to order a transfer. The application is dismissed. I am informed by the learned Vakil that he is in possession of a certified copy of the Magistrate's explanation.


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