Skip to content


Radhika Natha Saha Vs. Jotish Chandra Sadhu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1924All71; 73Ind.Cas.523
AppellantRadhika Natha Saha
RespondentJotish Chandra Sadhu
Cases ReferredCharu Chandra Majumdar v. Emperor
Excerpt:
.....r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]. - as an application for transfer it is bound to fail. saila nath mukerji quite naturally objected to my describing the application as one for transfer, because as an application for transfer it was bound to fail, and i will, therefore, deal with it in the language in which this application is presented to this court......irrelevant, by the new section 185 as amended by the criminal procedure code of 1923 when it becomes law. mr. saila nath mukerji quite naturally objected to my describing the application as one for transfer, because as an application for transfer it was bound to fail, and i will, therefore, deal with it in the language in which this application is presented to this court. this court is asked to declare that this case is triable exclusively in benares and not in calcutta. this court has no jurisdiction to make any such declaration, and i should not, in any event, even if there were jurisdiction, make a declaration which was a nullity. secondly, this court is asked to stay all further proceedings in the second presidency magistrate's court at calcutta. this court has no jurisdiction.....
Judgment:

Walsh, J.

1. This is, in my opinion, in substance an application for transfer. It is apparently proposed to do it by indirect means; first, getting a letter of request from Allahabad to Calcutta, then an order of stay or postponement out of the Magistrate at Calcutta, and then a declaration out of Allahabad that the case is exclusively triable in Benares. Nobody can doubt that all that complicated machinery is really an application for transfer. As an application for transfer it is bound to fail. This Court has no jurisdiction to transfer criminal cases which are in the course of hearing in another Province. Apparently Calcutta thought otherwise in the case of Charu Chandra Majumdar v. Emperor 37 Ind. Cas. 145 : 44 C. 595 : 21 C.W.N. 320 : 25 C.L.J. 165 : 8 Cr. L.J. 81 (P.B.). But the Madras High Court did not agree and I prefer the Madras view. All that will be wiped out and irrelevant, by the new Section 185 as amended by the Criminal Procedure Code of 1923 when it becomes law. Mr. Saila Nath Mukerji quite naturally objected to my describing the application as one for transfer, because as an application for transfer it was bound to fail, and I will, therefore, deal with it in the language in which this application is presented to this Court. This Court is asked to declare that this case is triable exclusively in Benares and not in Calcutta. This Court has no jurisdiction to make any such declaration, and I should not, in any event, even if there were jurisdiction, make a declaration which was a nullity. Secondly, this Court is asked to stay all further proceedings in the Second Presidency Magistrate's Court at Calcutta. This Court has no jurisdiction over the Second Presidency Magistrate's Court at Calcutta. The application is dismissed. The certified copies of the Calcutta proceedings are to be returned forthwith to Mr. S.N. Mukerji.


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