GHAYASUDDIN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GHYASUDDIN and three others have filed this revision against the re -visional judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge of Ghazipur rejecting their objections.

(2.) THE aforesaid revision arises out of proceedings initiated in the court of the SDM Ghazipur Under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently on the order of the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur those proceedings were transferred from that court to the court of the SDM Mahmodabad. The transferee court being unable to decide the question of possession referred it Under Section 146 Code of Criminal Procedure to the Munsif, Saidpur. During the pendency of the reference in that court one of the parties, viz. Karam Abbas died. Thereupon the learned Munsif returned the papers to the learned SDM Ghazipur for bringing the heirs of Karam Abbas on the record. When the matter came before the learned SDM Ghazipur he ordered the name of Akhtar Husain the present opposite party No. 3 to be substituted in place of Karam Abbas. Feeling aggrieved by that order the Applicants preferred a revision to the court of the Sessions Judge Ghazipur, and when his revision there failed, he filed the present revision.

(3.) NOW Under Section 192 Code of Criminal Procedure when a case is transferred for disposal from one Magistrate to another the transferor Magistrate ceases to exercise jurisdiction in respect of that case, and it is only the transferee Magistrate who has the jurisdiction to pass orders in that case, except in cases Under Section 528 and Ch. XXXII of the Code. As the present case falls neither Under Section 528 Code of Criminal Procedure nor u/Ch. XXXII of the Code, the transferee Magistrate alone had the jurisdiction to pass orders in the substitution matter. Hence the transferor Magistrate - -whether the original Magistrate or his successor in office - -had no jurisdiction to pass the order in question. The view expressed by me above, finds support from the decisions in Hafizur Rahman v. Aminul Haque, AIR 1941 Cal 165, Deo Narain Singh and Ors. v. Emperor : AIR 1933 Pat 244 and Golusu Apalanarasiah v. Emperor : AIR 1930 Mad 705. The order under revision must, therefore, be held to have been passed by a learned Magistrate who had no jurisdiction to do so, His order is, therefore, a void order which is not curable. I, accordingly, set aside that order and remand the case to the court of the learned SDM Mahmoodabad with the direction that he shall, after giving notice to the parties, dispose of the substitution application in accordance with law. As the matter is an old one, and is also one of urgency, the office is directed to send down the record of this case to the court of SDM Mahmoodabad as soon as possible so that he may be able to dispose of the substitution matter as soon as his pending file permits.