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

1951 Supreme(All) 186

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Raghubar Dayal, J.
LALTA PRASAD SAXENA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Case 1684 Of 1951
Decided On : 09/26/1951

Advocates Appeared:
D.P.UMYAL, P.C.Chaturvedi

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 14 - SPECIAL MAGISTRATE - JURISDICTION - TRANSFER OF CASE - CONVENIENCE OF ACCUSED.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant, Lalta Prasad Saxena, was employed as a booking clerk in charge at Pakhna railway station in the district of Farrukhabad. He was alleged to have committed an offence under Section 161, Penal Code on 6-7-1950. The police of the Special Police Establishment Branch, Lucknow, investigated the offence and submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant on 6-4-1951, in the Court of Sri G. S. Misra. The applicant filed an application under Sections 526 and 561-A, Criminal P. C., for either transferring the case to the Court of some other Magistrate in the district of Farrukhabad or to direct Sri G. S. Misra to hold his Court in the district of Farrukhabad.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that it would be more convenient for the accused if the case was tried at Farrukhabad, where the alleged offence took place. The court also held that the notification conferring powers on Sri G. S. Misra to try or commit cases investigated by the Government of India, Special Police Establishment throughout the United Provinces, was not illegal and did not confer any jurisdiction on him in the eye of law. Therefore, Sri G. S. Misra had no jurisdiction to try the applicant's case.

Issues: 1. Whether the notification conferring powers on Sri G. S. Misra to try or commit cases investigated by the Government of India, Special Police Establishment throughout the United Provinces, was illegal? 2. Whether Sri G. S. Misra had jurisdiction to try the applicant's case? 3. Whether it would be more convenient for the accused if the case was tried at Farrukhabad?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the notification conferring powers on Sri G. S. Misra to try or commit cases investigated by the Government of India, Special Police Establishment throughout the United Provinces, was not illegal. The court interpreted Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code and held that the Government can confer magisterial powers on a person in the entire area of the State, but the Magistrate would be considered to be a distinct Special Magistrate for each district. 2. The court held that Sri G. S. Misra had no jurisdiction to try the applicant's case because the notification conferring powers on him was illegal. 3. The court held that it would be more convenient for the accused if the case was tried at Farrukhabad, where the alleged offence took place.

Final Decision: The court ordered that the case be transferred to the Court of the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad, with the direction that he can transfer it for trial to any other competent Magistrate.

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application by Lalta Prasad Saxena under Sections 526 and 561-A, Criminal P. C. , for either transferring a criminal case against him under Section 161, Penal Code, from the Court of Sri G. S. Miara, Magistrate 1st class, Uttar Pradesh to the Court of some other Magis-trate in the district of Farrakhabad or to direct Sri G. S. Misra to hold his Court in the district of farrukhabad.

( 2 ) THE affidavit accompanying the application shows that the applicant was employed as booking clerk in charge at Pakhna railway station in the district of Farrukhabad, that he was alleged to have committed an offence under Section 161, Penal Code on 6-7-1950, and that the police of the Special Police Establishment Branch, Lucknow, investigated the offence and submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant on 6-4-1951, in the Court of Sri G. S. Misra. It is alleged in the affidavit that the notification dated 21-1-1950, conferring powers on Sri G. S. Misra of a magistrate of the first class to try or commit cases, investigated by the Government of India, special Police Establishment throughout the United Provinces, was wholly illegal and did not confer any jurisdiction on him in the eye of law and that, therefore, Sri G. S. Misra had no jurisdiction to try the applicants case. It was further alleged that the trial of the case at Lucknow amounts to an harassment of the accused who has to appear at Lucknow on every date fixed for the case, he getting Rs. 80 per month. All the defence witnesses would be from Farrukhabad district and the applicant expects to produce about ten witnesses. It is further alleged that the notification aforesaid ia an abuse of the power conferred by the Criminal Procedure Code on the state Government as this Court had been created to afford facility and advantage only to the prosecution apparently because the headquarters of the Special Police Establishment are at lucknow, disregarding the facility or the convenience of the accused. It is alleged that the convenience of the parties requires that the case be tried in Farrukhabad district.

( 3 ) THERE is no doubt that it would be much more convenient to the accused applicant that the case be tried at Farrukhabad where ordinarily the case would have been tried as the alleged offence under Section 161, I. P. C. , took place at a place within Farrukhabad district. The learned counsel for the State has not been able to suggest that trial at Farrukhabad would not be convenient to the accused. Trial there will avoid his visits to Lucknow on the dates fixed for hearing and on some of the dates on which the case might have to be adjourned for any good reason. He will have to incur more expenses in summoning witnesses to Lucknow from farrukbabad. Such witnesses may also feel it inconvenient to go to Lucknow. The learned counsel for the State has not been able to suggest any particular reason which makes it very desirable and necessary that the case should be tried at Lucknow. It appears to me that what is alleged in the affidavit filed with this application is a possible reason for the order of the government that cases, investigated by the Government of India. Special Police Establishment throughout the United Provinces, should be tried by the Special Magistrate, the reason being that this establishment is located at Lucknow and it might have been considered inconvenient for the limited staff to go to or produce evidence at other places. To my mind this possible inconvenience to the investigating staff does not outweigh the inconvenience to which an accused from another district is subject when he has to undertake his defence in another district. Farrukhabad is not very far from Lucknow, but I can imagine an accused of Dehra Dun or deoria or other places distant from Lucknow being tried at Lucknow in view of this notification.

( 4 ) IN this connection I may refer to another aspect of the matter and in that connection would simply quote the observa














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 Back to top