HARISINGH HARNAMSINH KHALSA DR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the complainant in two Criminal cases Nos. 178 and 1186 of 1968 filed in the Court of the City Magistrate 4 Court Ahmedabad under sec. 24(4) of the Bombay Rent Control Act against Harbhajan Kaur daughter of Dhundasingh and her father Dhundasingh Ladhusingh. There were three other criminal cases such as Cases Nos. 1292 2291 and 2292 of 1968 filed against him in the same Court. On 18-3-69 the petitioner filed Transfer Application No. 8 of 1969 in the Court of the Chief City Magistrate Ahmedabad presumably under sec. 598(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code inter alia alleging that in view of the attitude of the learned Magistrate in the Court he has reasonable apprehension that he will not get fair and impartial trial in the said Court. It appears that the application was kept for preliminary hearing on 26-3-69. On that day he orally requested for time to engage an advocate. He was asked to give an application in writing and for that he was given some time. He however did not turn up and consequently the matter was adjourned to 28-3-69 27 being a holiday. On that day also he asked for some time to produce an affidavit of the advocate who represented him in those cases in support of his application and also to engage an advocate for the preliminary hearing of his application. The case was consequently adjourned by the learned Chief City Magistrate Ahmedabad to 9469 and it was fixed for preliminary hearing. On that day he gave the present application Ex. M/4. On that day according to the applicant he was not in a position to engage an advocate and in those circumstances he submitted his written arguments before the Court. He was however orally informed as observed by the learned Magistrate in his report submitted to this Court on 15-4-69 that at the stage of preliminary hearing there is no scope for presenting the written arguments when the opponents are not in Court. That led the applicant to give an application. Therein he stated as under:-

(2.) It may however be stated that as he was not allowed to submit his written arguments he had filed Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 92 of 1969 in this Court on 9-4-69 invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under sec. 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code. His main ground was that he was a party interested in criminal proceedings and was entitled to be heard by the learned Chief City Magistrate. He also claimed the right to submit his arguments in writing as he was not in a position to engage any advocate who could address the Court on his behalf. This application had come up for admission on 10-4-69 before Sarela J. and a rule was directed to be issued in the cases. A report of the Chief City Magistrate was also called for. The report has been also received on 15469 and thereafter the matter has been set down for hearing.

(3.) Both these petitions are heard together and a common order is passed.