JUDGMENT - Mane A.D. J.:—In these four criminal applications, the question involved is identical. They arise out of a common order made on 4-12-1996 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F. C. Ambad, in Criminal Cases Nos. 23 to 26 of 1994, transferring these cases to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna. They are, therefore, being disposed of by the common judgment.

2. The petitioners are the accused persons in the criminal cases and they are the employees of District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Jalna. A complaint is filed against them on the ground that they, while working in the District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Branch at Teerthpuri, misappropriated the amount exceeding Rs. 1,00,000/-. A crime, therefore, came to be registered for commission of offences punishable under sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Charge-sheet came to be filed before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate F. C. Ambad . The learned Judicial Magistrate by his impugned order transferred these cases to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna. The reason for transfer of these cases is that the charges levelled against the accused are serious and having much public importance. The impugned order is passed in exercise of powers under sections 322(1)(c) read with 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relying on a decision in case of (Baba Abdul Khan v. A. D. Sawant, J.M.F.C. Nagpur)1, 1994 Cr.L.J. 2836.

4. Shri Salunke, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order is bad in law when the learned Magistrate has committed the cases and that too merely because he was of the opinion that, "....taking into consideration the gravity of the offences and public importance of these cases, it was deemed just and proper to transfer these cases to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna, for trial." It is submitted that in absence of any contingencies, having seen to exist under section 322(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the order is unsustainable in law. It is also submitted that the present cases do not fall under the ambit of section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

5. Shri Patil, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that though the impugned order does not specifically contain the detail reasons, cannot be said to be bad in law in view of the decision reported in 1994 Cri.L.J. 2836.

6. Before dealing with the case relied on by the learned Magistrate, it may be necessary to set out the relevant provisions of sections 322, 323 and 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They are as under :

"S.322. Procedure in cases which Magistrate cannot dispose of. - (1) If, in the course of any inquiry into an offence or a trial before a Magistrate, in any district, the evidence appears to him to warrant a presumption -

(a) that he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, or

(b) that the case is one which should be tried or committed for trial by some other Magistrate in the district, or,

(c) that the case should be tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate

he shall stay the proceedings and submit the case, with a brief report explaining its nature, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or to such other Magistrate, having jurisdiction, as the Chief Judicial Magistrate directs.

(2) The Magistrate to whom the case is submitted may, if so empowered, either try the case himself, or refer it to any Magistrate, subordinate to him having jurisdiction, or commit the accused for trial.

S.323. Procedure when, after commencement of inquiry or trial, Magistrate finds case should be committed. - (1) If, in any inquiry into an offence or a trial before a Magistrate, it appears to him at any stage of the proceedings before signing judgment that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session, he shall commit it to that court under the provisions hereinbefore contained and thereupon the provisions of Chapter XVIII shall apply to the commitment so made.

S.324. ……………

Click Here to Read the rest of this document