The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore does not have the power to retransfer a case after it has been referred to the former under Section 325 Cr.P.C.

1. This Criminal Original Petition, challenging the legality of the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore dated 31.01.2007 in C.C.No.6 of 2000 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirupattur, transferring the said case again to the very same magistrate after the case had been referred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 325 Cr.P.C., has been filed invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C

2. This Court heard the submissions made by Mr.P.G.Perumal Pandian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. I Paul Nobel Devakumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) representing the respondent. The materials placed on both sides were also perused.

3. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is:- "whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate, to whom a case has been referred under Section 325 Cr.P.C, can retransfer the same to the very same Judicial Magistrate or assign it to any other Judicial Magistrate?"

4. Before dealing with the above said abstract question, this Court deems it fit to recite the brief facts leading to the filing of this petition:-

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.6 of 2000 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Tirupattur. The same came to be instituted based on the final report filed in Crime No.60 of 1996 on the file of the Forest Range Officer, Tirupattur, Vellore District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 21 (d) (e) (f), 36-A and 36-E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act among other provisions of related Acts. The same was taken on file as C.C.No.6 of 2000 for offences under Section 21 (d) (e) (f), 36-A and 36-E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act r/w. 3(1) and 7 S.W.P. Rules. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and the case was tried. At the conclusion of trial, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Tirupattur recorded an opinion on 24.11.2004 holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 36-E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. However, stating that the Special Judicial Magistrate, at that point of time, was not empowered to impose even the minimum sentence prescribed for the said offence, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate submitted the proceedings and forwarded the petitioner/accused to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore under Section 325 (1) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore took it on file as C.C.No.189 of 20004. While the case was thus pending for consideration of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore, Section 29(2) of Cr.P.C came to be amended by enhancing the fining power of the Judicial Magistrates from Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/-.

5. As per the amended Section 36-E of Tamil Nadu Forest Act, an offence of contravention of Section 36-E of the Act is made punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to five years and with fine, which may extend to Rs.20,000/-. However, a proviso has also been appended prescribing minimum sentence of imprisonment and minimum fine to be imposed in such cases. As per proviso (a), minimum sentence of imprisonment is two years and the minimum fine is Rs.7,500/-for the first offence. As per Clause (b), for a second or subsequent offence, minimum imprisonment is for three years and the minimum fine that has to be imposed is Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, the amendment brought to Section 29(2) has empowered the Sepcial Judicial Magistrate, Tirupattur to impose the minimum sentence of imprisonment and fine referred to in Clause A of the proviso to Section 36-E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. Taking note of the said supervening event, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by the impugned order dated 24.11.2004, has retransmitted the case again to the Special Judicial Magistrate, Tirupattur for disposal according to law. The said order is impugned in the present petition seeking intervention of this Court by invoking its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the pe