Skip to content


State of Orissa Vs. Bijay Kumar Agarwalla - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revision No. 300 of 1983
Judge
Reported in1985(II)OLR590
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482
AppellantState of Orissa
RespondentBijay Kumar Agarwalla
Appellant AdvocateJairaj Behera, Addl S.C.
Respondent AdvocateS.C. Lal, Adv.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....as the order dated 3. 2. 1983, in my opinion, the learned magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass an order like the one he had passed on 3. 2. 1983 which factually kept in abeyance an order of transfer passed by the employer of the food inspector. the employer knows best as to how the interest of the municipality and the interest of the cases instituted by the food inspector can be protected......dated 3. 2. 1983 and 3. 5. 1983. by order dated 3. 2. 19 3, the learned magistrate directed the food inspector who had tiled prosecution report in a food adulteration case to move the authorities to keep his order of transfer in abeyance until completion of the work of segregation. it appears that the said food inspector had been transferred from cuttack municipality to sambalpur municipality. the effect of the order of the learned magistrate was that the order of transfer could not be given effect to. the learned public prosecutor thereafter filed an application before the learned magistrate to rescind his earlier order, indicating therein that the transfer order of an employee of the municipality cannot be interfered with by a magistrate in decision of a criminal case and that would.....
Judgment:

G.B. Pattnaik, J.

1. This is an application by the State of Orissa challenging the orders of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack, dated 3. 2. 1983 and 3. 5. 1983. By order dated 3. 2. 19 3, the learned Magistrate directed the Food Inspector who had tiled prosecution report in a Food Adulteration case to move the authorities to keep his order of transfer in abeyance until completion of the work of segregation. It appears that the said Food Inspector had been transferred from Cuttack Municipality to Sambalpur Municipality. The effect of the order of the learned Magistrate was that the order of transfer could not be given effect to. The learned Public Prosecutor thereafter filed an application before the learned Magistrate to rescind his earlier order, indicating therein that the transfer order of an employee of the Municipality cannot be interfered with by a Magistrate in decision of a criminal case and that would amount to an interference in the administrative affairs of the Municipality. The learned Magistrate, however, refused to rescind his earlier order by the impugned order dated 3. 5.1983

2. I have perused the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack, dated 3. 5. 1983 as well as the order dated 3. 2. 1983, In my opinion, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass an order like the one he had passed on 3. 2. 1983 which factually kept in abeyance an order of transfer passed by the employer of the Food Inspector. A Food Inspector might have launched prosecution in any case which was pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and his presence in the case may be of immense necessity but that will not clothe the Magistrate with the jurisdiction to give any direction in connection with his transfer from one place to the other. The employer knows best as to how the interest of the Municipality and the interest of the cases instituted by the Food Inspector can be protected. It is no part of a Magistrate's job to interfere with any administrative order of transfer of the Food Inspector from one municipality to other municipality. There can be no manner of doubt that the order of the learned Magistrate dated 3. 2. 1983 is wholly without jurisdiction and so also the order of the learned Magistrate dated 3. 5. 1933. I would accordingly set aside the orders dated 3. 2. 1983 and 3. 5.1983 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 22/81. This criminal revision is accordingly allowed.


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