SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(Raj) 37

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : K.L.Bapna,K.K.Sharma
RAM CHARAN - Appellant
Versus
RESIDENTS OF SHAHABAD WARD BARAN - Respondent
Criminal Ref. 22 Of 1956
Decided On : 03/13/1957

Advocates Appeared:
M.C.CHERIAN, V.P.TYAGI

The District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or Magistrate of the First Class can only direct the appearance of the person proceeded against before some other Magistrate of the First or Second Class at the time of passing the order under Section 133 of the CrPC. Subsequent transfer of the case to some other Magistrate is without jurisdiction.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 133 - TRANSFER OF CASE - JURISDICTION - DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE OR MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS CAN ONLY DIRECT APPEARANCE OF THE PERSON PROCEEDED AGAINST BEFORE SOME OTHER MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST OR SECOND CLASS AT THE TIME OF THE PASSING OF THE ORDER - SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER OF THE CASE TO SOME OTHER MAGISTRATE IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION.

Fact of the Case:

An application was filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) alleging that the working of a flour mill was causing noise, vibrations, and smoke, which were causing physical discomfort and health issues to the residents of the area. The SDM issued a conditional order directing the owner of the flour mill to remove the mill or appear before him to show cause against the order. The owner appeared and was granted time to comply. Later, the SDM transferred the case to the Court of Magistrate First Class, who passed an absolute order directing the owner to remove the flour mill within ten days.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the SDM had no jurisdiction to transfer the case to the Magistrate First Class after issuing the conditional order under Section 133 of the CrPC. The court noted that Section 133 specifically empowers the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or Magistrate of the First Class to pass a conditional order and direct the person to appear before himself or some other Magistrate of the First or Second Class. However, it does not authorize a subsequent transfer of the case to some other Magistrate.

Issues: Whether the SDM had the jurisdiction to transfer the case to the Magistrate First Class after issuing the conditional order under Section 133 of the CrPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 133 of the CrPC and held that the power to transfer a case under Section 192 of the CrPC, which allows the District Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Magistrate to transfer cases, does not apply to cases under Section 133. The court noted that Section 133 contains specific provisions regarding the appearance of the person proceeded against before a Magistrate and the consequences of non-compliance, which indicate that the Magistrate who issues the conditional order retains jurisdiction over the case.

Final Decision: The High Court accepted the reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, set aside the order of the SDM transferring the case, and quashed the subsequent proceedings. The case was remanded back to the SDM for further proceedings according to law.

Judgment


K. L. BAPNA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baran, dated 3-21956, and arises in the following circumstances: on 20-7-1955, an application for taking proceedings under Section 133 Cr. P. C. signed by several residents of Shahabad ward, Baran, was presented in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baran, alleging that the working of the flour mill of Ram Charan was making considerable noise and the vibrations were damaging to the neighbouring buildings, and that its working caused physical discomfort, while the smoke of the engine affected the health of the public. The Sub-Divisional magistrate sent the application to the Police Station, Baran, for report. The police supported the applicants, whereupon the Sub-Divisional Magistrate made a conditional order under Section 133 Cr. P. C. on 22nd July, 1955, directing Ramcharan to remove the flour mill or if he objected so to do, to appear before him on 16th August, 1955, to show cause against the order. On 16th August, 1955, Ramcharan appeared, and wanted time which was granted to him till 30th August, 1955. On that day the Sub-Divisional Magistrate transferred the case to the Court of Magistrate. First Class; Baran. The learned magistrate, after recording evidence, made the order of the S. D. O. dated 22-71954, absolute. He also recorded an order under Section 140 directing Ram charan to remove the flour mill within ten days, and informed him that in case of disobedience he will be liable to penalty under Section 188 of the Indian Penal code. This order was passed on 28-11-1955. Ramcharan filed a revision, and the learned additional Sessions Judge has made a reference that the order of transfer of the case by the S. D. O. on 30-8-1955, to the Magistrate, First Class, was illegal, and the subsequent proceedings should be quashed as being without jurisdiction.

( 2 ) THE reference came before a learned Single Judge of this Court, and he has referred the case to a Division Bench in view of the divergent views of the High courts on this question. As mentioned in the reference, the view taken by the allahabad and Lahore High Courts is in support of the reference, while the view of the Calcutta and Patna High Courts was stated to be that the S. D. M. had jurisdiction to transfer the case at any stage of the proceedings, and in any case it was a mere irregularity which could be cured under Section 529 of the Code of criminal Procedure.

( 3 ) WE have heard Mr. Tyagi for Ramcharan and Mr. Chhabra, Dy. Government advocate, for the State. In our opinion the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Bhola v. Lachman, AIR 1950 All 475 (A) appears to be sound for the reasons which follow. Section 192 Cr. P. C. , which is relied upon in support of the view that the Magistrate can transfer the case at any stage, authorises a District Magistrate and a Sub-Divisional Magistrate to transfer any case, of which he has taken cognizance, for inquiry or trial, to any Magistrate subordinate to him. Sub-section (2) of that section further authorises the District Magistrate to empower any magistrate of the first class who has taken cognizance of any case to transfer it for inquiry or trial to any other specified Magistrate in his district who is competent under the Code of Criminal Procedure to try the accused or commit him for trial; and such Magistrate may dispose of the case accordingly. It may be noted that a First Class Magistrate can only exercise the power if empowered by the District Magistrate, and further the said Magistrate can only exercise the power if empowered by the other Magistrate of the First, Second or third Class, who is competent under the Code to try the accused or to commit him for trial.

( 4 ) SECTION 133 on the other hand empowers

"a District Magistrate, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and a Magistrate of the First Class to pass a conditional order to remove a nuisance (which is the case before us), or if the person objects to co









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top