Skip to content


Sardar Khan Sahib Vs. Athanlla - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Mad174; (1924)47MLJ926
AppellantSardar Khan Sahib
RespondentAthanlla
Cases ReferredJago Singh v. Emperor
Excerpt:
- .....deputy magistrate. mr, pinto's successor at dharmapuri granted the accused a de novo trial. the district magistrate has now ordered the transfer of these cases to the file of mr. pinto at salem on the groundthat the balance of convenience is strongly in favour of the small amount of work still to be done being done by mr. pinto at salem, rather than the whole case should be heard again by a new magistrate at dharmapuri. 2. it has been assumed by the district magistrate that mr. pinto could go on with the trial of the cases from the point where he had left it. in the decision reported in jago singh v. emperor 53 indcas 820 it has been held by a bench of the patna high court, in similar circumstances, that when on the transfer of a magistrate, a criminal case pending before him is taken.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. These cases were tried before Mr. Pinto, while he was the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Dharmapuri; but before the trial was over, he was transterred to Salem as the Treasury Deputy Magistrate. Mr, Pinto's successor at Dharmapuri granted the accused a de novo trial. The District Magistrate has now ordered the transfer of these cases to the file of Mr. Pinto at Salem on the ground

that the balance of convenience is strongly in favour of the small amount of work still to be done being done by Mr. Pinto at Salem, rather than the whole case should be heard again by a new Magistrate at Dharmapuri.

2. It has been assumed by the District Magistrate that Mr. Pinto could go on with the trial of the cases from the point where he had left it. In the decision reported in Jago Singh v. Emperor 53 IndCas 820 it has been held by a Bench of the Patna High Court, in similar circumstances, that when on the transfer of a Magistrate, a criminal case pending before him is taken up by another Magistrate and the trial is started de novo, the proceedings, which had already taken place before the Magistrate, who has been transferred, are wiped out and such Magistrate has no jurisdiction on his return to the district to proceed with the trial from the point where he had left it. Applying the principle of this decision to the facts of the present case, I am inclined to think that, if Mr. Pinto took up the cases from the point where he left it and went on with the trial, his procedure would be illegal and the cases would have to be tried de novo. The balance of convenience relied upon by the District Magistrate as a justification for the transfer does not, therefore, really exist. The question as regards the hardship and the inconvenience which the transfer of the cases to Salem will cause to parties and their witnesses, all of whom are alleged to belong to Dharmapuri, has also not been considered by the District Magistrate.

3. I therefore set aside the order of the District Magistrate transferring the cases to the file of the Treasury Deputy Magistrate at Salem. The Sub-divisional Magistrate of Dharmapuri will take up the cases on his file and proceed with their trial.

4. In this view, it is unnecessary to consider the further question raised by the petitioner's learned vakil that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to transfer the cases to the file of Mr. Pinto, under Section 528, Criminal Procedure Code, since Mr. Pinto is only a Treasury Deputy Magistrate.


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