NATESAN SERVAI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four petitioners who were accused 1 to 3 and 7 in the Court of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Sirkali, were convicted by that Court, petitioners 1 to 3 of an offence under Section 324, Penal Code, and petitioner 4 of an offence under Section 324 read with Section 511, Penal Code. Petitioners 1 to 8 were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six weeks and petitioner 4 was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 or in default to suffer rigorous impri-sonment for one month. Along with them seven others also were charge-sheeted but before the case came to the Sub- Magistrate, Sir-kali, and while it was before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mayavaram, they were discharged under Section 253 (1), Criminal P. C. Against their conviction, the petitioners preferred Cri. App. No. 60 of 1948 and that was heard by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tanjore who confirmed the convictions and sentences. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) The only point raised by Mr. K. S. Jaya-rama Aiyar for the petitioners is one of pure law and hence it is unnecessary for us to go into the facts at all, which we would not have done even otherwise, this being a revision petition. Originally eleven accused were charge-sheeted before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mayuram for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, Penal Code, etc. After the prosecution evidence was let in before that Court, the Sub- Divisional Magistrate found that there was no prima facie case proved against seven of them and as stated already they were discharged. He framed charges against the first three accused of an offence under Section 324, Penal Code, and against accused 7 of an offence under Section 324 read with Section 511, Penal Code. After framing the charge, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate transferred the case for disposal to the Sub-Magistrate of Sirkali on the footing that as the offences of which the accused were charged were triable ordinarily by a Magistrate exercising second class powers it would be in the interests of justice to have a second class Magistrate to try the case. Accordingly the Court to which it was transferred, viz., the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Sirkali, took up the case on file, heard the evidence and convicted the accused as stated by us above. In the appeal to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate the said convictions and sentences were confirmed.

(3.) What is contended for the petitioners before us is that Section 192, Criminal P. C., which relates to transfer of cases by Magistrates cannot have any application to the facts of the present case because the transfer contemplated by Section 192 (1), Criminal P. C., is a transfer "for enquiry or trial to any Magistrate subordinate to him" by a Chief Presidency Magistrate, District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate who has taken cognizance of the case. In the present case the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Mayuram, who had examined the witnesses, discharged some of the accused and framed charges against the other accused cannot, according to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, transfer the case at that stage but should himself have tried it to the end.