The CJM has the power to make over a case to the ACJM, but the order should be specific, well-reasoned, and not passed in a mechanical manner. The order making over the case should be based on compelling special reasons, and not on the basis of a rubber stamp order.

ORDER :

Heard.

2. Present petition is directed against order dated 27-3-2014 of CJM, Indore making over the case to ACJM, Indore for its disposal as per law.

3. Necessary facts in short are that on the basis of charge sheet filed by CBI, petitioners faced a trial under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate CBI and Economic Offence, Indore. At the stage of judgment, vide order dated 18-12-2013, Special Judicial Magistrate submitted the proceedings under section 325 of Criminal Procedure Code to CJM after giving findings of conviction in the matter so that harsher punishment may be awarded to the petitioner.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that according to provisions of section 325 of Criminal Procedure Code, it was the duty of CJM to hear the matter himself because it does not contemplate hearing to be done by ACJM. He further submits that in impugned order making over of case has been done by CJM under sections 192 and 410 of Criminal Procedure Code for investigation/trial/disposal. Learned Counsel submits that under section 192 of Criminal Procedure Code, CJM has a right and control on the Magistrates subordinate to him, after taking cognizance of the matter, case could have been made over to any Competent Magistrate. In the present case, there had been no question of taking cognizance of the case because this case has been submitted by the Court concerned at the stage of judgment after recording findings of conviction in the matter. Under section 410 of Criminal Procedure Code also, CJM has a right to withdraw or recall the case from any Sub-ordinate Court. These both the situations are not present in this case.

5. Learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that according to section 12 of Criminal Procedure Code, CJM and ACJM are having equal judicial powers and no prejudice would be caused if at the stage of section 325, Criminal Procedure Code also case is proceeded and decided by the CJM or the ACJM because both are competent to award the same sentence. He further submits that under section 15(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, CJM has overall control and vast powers to make the rules and to make over any case to any of the Magistrate for its hearing and disposal.

6. Considering the aforesaid, there appears no hesitation to this Court to observe that CJM has powers to make over the case to ACJM also. At the same time this is also equally true that at the stage of section 325 of Criminal Procedure Code, when Special Court has already recorded the findings of conviction and has submitted the case to CJM for awarding appropriate higher jail sentence, which was not possible to the Magistrate because of his limitations. In such a situation, CJM is competent and entitled to proceed in the matter himself as well as to make over the case to ACJM, but by specific speaking and well-reasoned order.

7. On perusal of impugned order dated 27-3-2014, it reveals that this order has been passed on the basis of contents reflected by rubber stamp. Provisions of section 192/410, Criminal Procedure Code both are not directly available to CJM in the present case. In this case, case has been submitted under section 325 of Criminal Procedure Code at the stage of judgment. Nothing appears wrong if CJM has made over this case to ACJM, who is equally competent in the matter but grounds of making over should be different. CJM and ACJM both are having equal judicial competence. CJM is senior amongst the equal and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner whether the case is heard by CJM or by ACJM.

8. In such as situation, order dated 27-3-2014 deserves to be and is hereby set aside on the ground that it has been passed in mechanical manner, without taking into consideration the fact situation of the matter. At face value, it seems desirable that case submitted under section 325 of Criminal Procedure Code by Sub-ordinate Magistrate to the CJM, should be heard a