Skip to content


Sham Lal Vs. Emperor, Through Kanhaiya Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1920All195(2); 58Ind.Cas.923
AppellantSham Lal
RespondentEmperor, Through Kanhaiya Lal
Excerpt:
.....bare facts that the complainant in the criminal proceedings against sham lal holds an unsatisfied decree over the magistrate again. in these circumstances, i think that this is one of those exceptional cases where a transfer ought to be allowed and under these conditions the case must be sent to the district magistrate of bijnor with a request to him that be will hear the matter of the complaints of khanhaiya lal against sham lal from the beginning to the conclusion and will decide as between the parties; but if, from any pressure of work, he finds himself unable to do it he is to be good enough to select a magistrate whom he regards as being entirely competent and qualified to pronounce a just decision. the matter is one of some importance because sham lal did commence proceedings for..........and that the plaintiff in that auction got a decree for rs. 300. within a very short period of the decree mahtab singh, who was the plaintiff in that action, found himself a defendant in an action at the suit of kanhaiya lal, who is the complainant in the present criminal case part heard before the honorary magistrate. the result of the action between kanhaiya lal and mahtab singh was that mahtab singh was decreed to be indebted to kanhaiya lal in the sum of rs. 240, now mahtab singh had an unsatisfied decree for rs. 300 against the honorary magistrate and thereupon kanhaiya lal, the complainant in the criminal case and the next door neighbour of the honorary magistrate, attached that decree and, therefore, has put himself legally in a position to do a number of unpleasant things to the.....
Judgment:

Grimwood Mears, C.J.

1. This is an application for transfer of a case under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, from the Court of an Honorary Magistrate. Transfers ought, in principle, to be very difficult to obtain because nothing so undermines the feeling of the responsibility of Magistrates and their own self-respect in the adjudication of cases as ordering transfers from them when they are once in possession of a case. Bat, on the other hand, when there is found to be a degree of association between the Magistrate and one or other of the parties to a case and when, moreover, it is found that one of the parties to the case has or may possibly have some financial hold over the Magistrate, it is very undesirable that the Magistrate should adjudicate in a case of Thai character. The evidence in relation to what I have called 'some financial hold' is this. I am told, that an action was brought for commission against the Honorary Magistrate and that the plaintiff in that auction got a decree for Rs. 300. Within a very short period of the decree Mahtab Singh, who was the plaintiff in that action, found himself a defendant in an action at the suit of Kanhaiya Lal, who is the complainant in the present criminal case part heard before the Honorary Magistrate. The result of the action between Kanhaiya Lal and Mahtab Singh was that Mahtab Singh was decreed to be indebted to Kanhaiya Lal in the sum of Rs. 240, Now Mahtab Singh had an unsatisfied decree for Rs. 300 against the Honorary Magistrate and thereupon Kanhaiya Lal, the complainant in the criminal case and the next door neighbour of the Honorary Magistrate, attached that decree and, therefore, has put himself legally in a position to do a number of unpleasant things to the Honorary Magistrate or, possibly, to show favour to him. One need not go any further than just state the bare facts that the complainant in the criminal proceedings against Sham Lal holds an unsatisfied decree over the Magistrate again. In these circumstances, I think that this is one of those exceptional cases where a transfer ought to be allowed and under these conditions the case must be sent to the District Magistrate of Bijnor with a request to him that be will hear the matter of the complaints of Khanhaiya Lal against Sham Lal from the beginning to the conclusion and will decide as between the parties; but if, from any pressure of work, he finds himself unable to do it he is to be good enough to select a Magistrate whom he regards as being entirely competent and qualified to pronounce a just decision. The matter is one of some importance because Sham Lal did commence proceedings for malicious prosecution when the first complaint was dismissed by reason of the absence of Kanhaiya Lal and his witnesses and, therefore, as between the complainant and the defendant, there is a strong degree of hostility. In these circumstances, the application for transfer is allowed.


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