STATE OF MYSORE Vs. SHIVAPPA CHANBASAPPA KUNAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 11 revision petitions have been filed by the State challenging the correctness of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dharwar, in Cr.R.P. Nos.21 to 31 of 1970.

(2.) On a complaint given by one Channabasappa Mudukappa Kakola against the 11 respondents before this Court, the Ranebennur Police instituted proceedings under S.110 Cr.P.C. in the Court of the Sub-Divisonal Magistrate, Haveri. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haveri passed orders dated 30-4-1970 holding that the incidents mentioned in the complaint were not sufficient to proceed against the 11 respondents under S.110 Cr.P.C. and declined to make a preliminary order under S.112 Cr.P.C. Against these orders passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, the State preferred revision petitions before the learned Sessions Judge, Dharwar, challenging the correctness and legality of the said orders. The learned Sessions Judge relying on a decision of this Court, Syed Ismail Qadri v. Syed Abdul Nabi, (1969) 1 Mys.L.J. 1 held that he was not competent to revise the impugned orders passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, under S.435 Cr.P.C. and declined to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in the revison petitions filed by the State. The State, in these 11 revision petitions has challenged the correctness and legality of the said orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State, has contended that in the decision in Syed Ismail Qadri v. Syed Abdul Nabi, this Court was considerng the powers of the Sessions Judge to transfer a case pending before a Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In the said decision, this Court held that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not subordinate to the Sessions Judge but it is only the District Magistrate who could order the transfer of a case from the file of the SubDivisional Magistrate. The learned Government Pleader has pointed out that S.17B Cr.P.C. specifically states that all Courts of Magistrates shall be Criminal Courts inferior to the Court of Session. S.435 Cr.P.C. states that the High Court or the Sessions Judge may call for and examine the records of any proceedings before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its local limits or his jurisdiction. S.17B Cr.P.C. clearly states that Courts of Magistrates are Criminal Courts inferior to the Court of Session. It is argued that the Sessions Judge had power under S.435 Cr.P.C. to call for and examine the records of the proceedings for the purpose of satisfying himself about the correctness, legality or propriety of the finding, sentence or order passed, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.