I.D. Dua, J.
(1) This renision has basn presented in this Court under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code. ag-inst the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasu. dated 23rd March, 1967. by means of which the Court of the Sessions Judge avowed the revision and setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint of the complainant under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code remanded the case to the trial Court for further enquiry into the complaint and for taking further action in accordance with Jaw
(2) It appears that a complaint had been filed by Gabind Ram (respondent in this Court) against 43 accused persons under section 47/147, 1. P. C. The complaint was forwarded by the learned Magistrate for investigation and report under section 136, Criminal Procedure Code On receipt of the report from the police, the learned Magistrate trying the case, passed an order on 28th June 1966 summoning the complainant for 7th July, 1960. On the said date of bearing, the complainant desired to produce the orders of the Tehsildar by means of which the land in question had been entered in his name in the revenue papers. The case - was accordingly adjourned to 22nd July, 1966 for further action. On that date of bearing, the complainant was nto present, when the case was called However, an application was received by past under registered cover from the complainant stating that he hid applied for transfer of the case in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge. No stay order having been received by the learned Magistrate, the complainant was ordered by means of a ntoice to produce the stay order on 10th August. 1966, and it was observed that in case of defa'.ilt, the Court would proceed with the case. It was in these circumstances that of 10th August, 1966, the learned Magistrate proceeded to deal with the merits of the case in the absence of the production of the stay order The learned Magistrate observed in his order that it was nto proper for the Patwari of the area to enter the possession of the complainant on a piece of land, thereby imparting the right of toher right-holders without any specific orders from the superior officer. On this observation, he directed that the Collector be moved in this behalf and that an enquiry be held into the matter. The complaint was also dismissed under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. In the end of the typed order, I also find that the presence of the complainant was ntoed in pen and ink in the following word : - 'The complainant was present'
(3) On revision, the learned Sessions Judge. as observed earlier, set aside this order of dismissal and remitted the case back for further enquiry. The learned Sessions Judge felt that the dismissal of complaint under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, was nto a lawful order because after 22nd July, 1966 the learned Magistrate was nto competent to take further proceedings and that be was bound to adjourn the proceedings to await the order of the Sessions Judge on the transfer application.
(4) Before me, the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners has conceded that the learned Sessions Judge was competent to make the order he did under section 436, Criminal Procedure Code. Shri Chhabil Dass has, however, contended that merely because the complainant bad sent an intimation by post that he had moved the learned Sessions Judge for the transfer of the case, was nto by itself enough for the learned Magistrate to stay his hands and that in the absence of a stay order from the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Magistrate was fully empowered and indeed was justified, in proceeding further with the complaint and disposing it of in the manner he did. The learned counsel has also submitted that the complain int did nto inform the learned Magistrate of 10th August, 1966 that a transfer application had actually been presented in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge.
(5) Form the record, I find a copy of the order by the learned Sessions Judge dated 25th November, 1966 rejecting the transfer application (Cr. Fr. Appl. No. 22M/20 of 196-) on the ground that the learned Magistrate had already dismissed the complaint on 10th August, 1966 betore the receipt of the order of the learned Session Judge dated 28th July, 1966 which had unfortunately been dispatched as late as I2th August, 1966. The order dated 25th November. 1966 quite clearly shows that on 28th July. 1966, the learned Sessions Judge had called for the record of the case, ordered ntoices to go to the respondents and had also directed that further proceedings in the Court of Magistrate 1st Class, Rohu, be stayed. The transfer application was directed to be put on 7th October 1966 for hearing. Unfortunately, by 7th October. 1968, the order of the Court made on 28th July, 1966 had nto been sent to the trial Court, with the result, that the case had to be adjourned to 2nd November, 1966, on which date again, he respondents having nto been served, fresh ntoices were directed to go. The order dated 28 the July, 1966, as is apparent from the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 25th .November, 1966, was dispatched on 12th August, 1966 It was in these circumstances that the stay order did nto reach to learned Magistiate who proceeded to deal with the complaint on 10th August, 1966 and it is on this state of the record that the learned Sassions Judge has set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and remitted the case back for further eaquiry.
(6) Shri Chhabil Dass, the learned Counsel for the accused, has however, submitted that the learned Magistrate was nto bound to stay the proceedings and that the learned Sessions Judge has ignored that the proceedings before the learned Magistrate neither amounted to an enquiry under Chapter Viii or Chapter xviii, Cr.PC , nor did that consititute a trial, with the result that mere filing of the transfer application in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge did nto entail automatic stay of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate. In my opinion, it is unnecessary to go into this question and without expressing any opinion thereon, I would dismiss this revision on the short ground that the order of the learned Sessions Judge has done substantial justice between the parties and there is no failure of justice demanding interference on revision. I may here reproduce the exact words of the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 25th November, 1966, so far as relevant for the purpose of showing as to what was the order made by him on 28th July, 1966 :-
'the petitioner-complainant, had filed the present transfer application of his complaint pending in the Court of M.I.C. Rohru U/s 427/147 Indian Penal Code On 28th July, 1966 it was ordered that the record may be sent for, the ntoice be issued to the respondents and the further proceedings in the Court of M.I.C, Rohru were also ordered to be stayed and it was ordered that the application be put up on 7th October, 1966 foi hearing. Now, if the stay order had actually been made on 28th July, 1966, then merely because it had nto reached the learned Magistrate on 10th Aagust, 1966, the effect of the order of transfer could nto be nullified, The presence of the complainant in the Court of the learned Magistrals on 10th August, 1966 is also suggestive of the fact that the complainant must, in all probability, have informed the learned Magistrate about the order mad' by the learned Sessions Judge on 28th July, 1966. In these circumstances, in my opinion, it was hardly a proper exercise of judicial discretion on the part of the learned Magistrate to have procced with the complaint and disposed it of in the manner he did. The jurisdiction which this Court exercises on revision under section 439, Cr. PC.. does nto create any right. in the litigant, but only conserves the power of this Court to see that justice is done in accordance with the recognized rules of criminal jurisprudence and that subordinate criminal coarts do nto exceed their jurisdiction or abuse their powers vested in them by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate having been informed by the complainant that an application for transfer had been made in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, in my opinion, it would have been a better exercise of judicial discretion for the Learned Magistrate to stay the proceedings and nto to dismiss the complaint under section 203, Cr PC. The suggestion that the complainant did nto inform the learned Magistrate of having presented a transfer application, is far from impressive and on the state of the record in this case, I am nto inclined to sustain this suggestion.
(7) Before concluding, however, I must disapprove the procedure adopted by the complainant is sending intimation to the Court of the learned Magistrate by post about his having applied for the transfer of the case in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Judicial applications in the Courts of law, have to be presented either personally or through legal practitioners and they should nto be sent by post. Unfortunately, the learned Magistrate also did nto realise the impropriety of entertaining applications by post.
(8) Turning now to the State of affairs in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasu. It is somewhat disappointing to ntoice that the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 28th July. 1966 was nto dispatched to the learned Magistrate concerned till as late as 12th August, 1966, This discloses an alarming state of affairs which cannto be too strongly disapproved. Lapses of this kind nto only result in gross failure of justies, but they also undermine the confidence of the people in the efficieney and efficaciousness of our criminal judicial process. Justice in cases like the present also mast nto only be done but must also be seen to be done. It has very often been rightly said that the standard of civilization of a nation is measured, to a large extent, by the standard of its criminal administration of justice. A reasonably appropriate standard of criminal administration of justice, normally expected in a democratic civilized society, governed by Rule of Law like ours, serves as a check on the free play of instincts of revenge in the member of the society, whereas unsatisfactory administration of criminal justice tends to promtoe and encourage lawlessness and chaos, for, people are likely to take law in their own hands for taking revenge of injuries, real or supposed, done to them. It is turn this reason that criminal adminis tration of justice is the responsiblity of the state in all civilized socities and private complaints are also, to a considerable extent, deals. with on similar lines.
(9) It is suggested by Shri Chhabil Dass that the present case is more in the nature of a civil dispute but this is a matter concerned with the merits which will have to be dealt with by the trial court and nto in the present proceedings on the existing material.
(10) As a result of the foregoing discussion, I do nto find any cogent ground for interference on revision with the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasu. The records may now be sent to the Court of the learned Magistrate without undue delay and it is hoped that the learned Magistrate. would proceed with the complaint in accordance with law with due dispatch so that the complaint is disposed of without avoidable delav In criminal cases, it must be remembered, the cause of justice may tend to be defeated by uadue and avoidable delay parties are directed to appear in the Court of the learned Magistrate on 15th July, 1963 when a short date would be given for farther proceeding. It is unfortunate that the counsel for the accused is nto present though the case was posted for announcement. This Court expect? the counsel to be present at the time of announcement.