REV STAINISLAUS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Revision No. 159 of 1971 (Rev. Stainislaus v. The State of M. P.).

(2.) ON a report made by the Circle Inspector, Balodabazar, dated 9 -3 -1970, and on a complaint made by him on 23 -5 -1970, the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Balodabazar, sanctioned prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 (2) and Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968 (No. 27 of 1968), by Order, dated 23 -10 -1970, in exercise of the powers delegated to him by Section 7 of the said Act. Accordingly, an offence was registered and Criminal Case No. 1195 of 1970 was initiated in the Court of the Magistrate, Ist Class, Balodabazar.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate, by order dated 28 -10 -1970, observed that the objections raised constituted a constitutional question, which the High Court alone was competent to adjudicate upon. In spite of that observation, the learned Magistrate refused to refer the case for the opinion of this Court, as required by Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against the order of the trial Magistrate the petitioner filed a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 139 of 1970. By order, dated 15 -2 -1971, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that no question of constitutional importance arose and hence he refused to refer the case for the opinion of this Court. Therefore, the petitioner has filed not only a Criminal Revision under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, but also a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. As both these cases involve the same questions, we propose to dispose them of by a common order.