Skip to content


State Vs. Hiralal Gangaram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMadhya Pradesh
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1952CriLJ872
AppellantState
RespondentHiralal Gangaram
Excerpt:
- .....regarding the venue of the trial would however invest the sessions court at rutlam with the power to try the case & it would be proper to hold that the case, was at the time of the commitment pending in the mandsour sessions division. consequently it must be transferred for trial to the sessions judge rutlam.4. i order accordingly.
Judgment:

Rege, J.

1. The opponent was put up before the District and Sessions Judge, Mandsour on an accusation of murder under Section 292 of the Gwalior, Tajirat. The proceedings preliminary to commitment which commenced on 24.6.1948 were closed so far as the prosecution was concerned on 25.1.1949, after a number of unnecessary adjournments several of which were on the ground of want of time. I would observe that the trial or enquiry in a case of this kind looses its importance by inordiante delay in the proceedings and a large number of adjournments by reason of want of time indicate inefficiency and want of control over the work. It ought not to be difficult for the Presiding Officer of the Court, to fix work in such quantity as will reasonably enable him to get through it so that parties may not be put to unnecessary inconvenience and expense and in criminal cases in particular the evidence being mostly oral and subject to loss of weight by lapse of time, the Presiding Officer must be astute to see that the proceedings are finished without unreasonable delay.

2. On 8.9.1948, all the evidence for the prosecution was over and at the instance of the prosecution the case was fixed for the production of the report of the Chemical Analyser on 13.9.48, Another adjournment was sought on that day and this was granted. On the same day, the accused was released on bail. The offence being one punishable with death or transportation for life reasons should have been given for the release; but none appear on the record. The case made no progress thereafter till 25.1.1949 when the accused was examined and called on to tender evidence on his behalf on 11.3.1949; and the case was again adjourned to 11.4.1949. The proceedings of that date are 'File put up after holiday. Put up on 15.5.1949.' The 15th was a holiday the file came up on the 16th of May and was ordered to be put up on 11.6.1949. The accused was absent on the 11th of June 1949 and the case was fixed for arguments on 20.6.1949. Eventually, the order of commitment was made on 27.6.1949. All this is deplorable.

3. At the date of the offence, the village where the alleged offence took place was within the jurisdiction of Mandsour District. After the integration in the Madhya Bharat the village was put in the Rutlam District. On 28.3.1949 an order was published in the Gazette that cases pending in a Court the jurisdiction in which is transferred to another Court should be transferred to the latter Court. It is obvious that the Magistrate at Mandsour had jurisdiction to take cognisance of the offence since the village was then within his charge and the subsequent change could not oust his jurisdiction. The transfer of the village to the Rutlam District considered with Notification regarding the venue of the trial would however invest the Sessions Court at Rutlam with the power to try the case & it would be proper to hold that the case, was at the time of the commitment pending in the Mandsour Sessions Division. Consequently it must be transferred for trial to the Sessions Judge Rutlam.

4. I order accordingly.


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