SAKTHIVEL Vs. THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is an accused in C.C. No. 149 of 1980 which was pending on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras for an offence under Railway Properties (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter called the R.P. Act, 1966). It is also stated that four witnesses have already been examined on the side of the prosecution. The Petitioner is now aggrieved by the order of the Respondents transferring all cases filed under the R.P. Act, 1966, to be transferred to the VIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. The writ petition is to quash the said order of the Respondents dated 22.12.1983 as being illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). In W.M.P. No. 11886 of 1985, George Town Bar Association was directed to be impleaded as a third party supporting the stand taken by the Petitioner herein.

(2.) THE Petitioner is attacking the order both on general grounds as well as on certain hardships and prejudice caused to the Petitioner in the matter of conducting the trial of the case. I will first deal with the legal impediments for passing such an order of transfer. According to Mr. C.D. Sekkizhar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, S. 16(3) of the Code vests every Metropolitan Magistrate with jurisdiction and power extending throughout the Metropolitan area. Therefore without amending the said provision of law, the VIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate or any other Metropolitan Magistrate can be stripped of his powers by a mere administrative order. It is also contended that S. 19(3) of the Code, which enables the Respondents to distribute the business among the Metropolitan Magistrate would not cover the present order of transfer. There is also reference to the appointment of a Special Magistrate and the powers of a Chief Judicial Magistrate in the districts under Section 192 of the Code, but I do not think that they have any relevance to the validity of the impugned order. It is not the case of the Respondents that the VIth Metropolitan Magistrate has been appointed as a Special Magistrate under Section 18 of the Code nor do they rely on S. 192 for the purpose of sustaining the impugned order.

(3.) THE cases under R.P. Act were formerly being tried by different Metropolitan Magistrates in addition to their regular work. With a view to expedite the disposal of cases and for the sake of convenience the High Court directed the Respondents to earmark the cases to the VIth Metropolitan Magistrate. To understand the scope of the arguments it is better to extract here the relevant provisions of law. S. 16 of the Code is as follows: