CHHEDI LAL KHATIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three cases, involving the same point, have been placed before us for orders. The point involved is one of procedure, arising out of the passing of the West Bengal Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1970 (West Bengal Act VIII of 1970) which came into force on the 24th February, 1970 in certain districts, as to whether the previous procedure relating to the form of the notice of the Rule issued by the High Court has to be changed with regard to cases whereto the above-mentioned Act does apply. The point is of some importance and arises in the context of the reports submitted by the District Magistrate, Howrah, sending back the copies of the three notices to the Registrar, Appellate Side, High Court for information and necessary orders, on the ground that the Judicial Magistrate is no longer under his control.

(2.) The Rule in Criminal Revision Case No. 175 of 1971 was issued by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.3.71 on the District Magistrate, Howrah, calling upon him to show cause as to why the sentence imposed on the petitioner should not be reduced, modified or altered etc. with a further direction that the accused-petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Howrah Sadar. The report by the District Magistrate, Howrah dated the 12th April, 1971 is as follows: ?This also relates to Sri S. P. Sengupta, Judl. Magistrate, who is not under the control of D.M., Howrah. Return the same to the Asst. Registrar, High Court Cr. Rev. jurisdiction?. The Rule in Criminal Revision Case No. 157 of 1971 was issued by the Single Bench on the 11th March, 1971 calling upon the District Magistrate, Howrah as also the opposite-party No. 2 to show cause as to why the order complained of should not be set aside and the proceeding in the case be not quashed with a further direction for an ad interim stay of all further proceedings in the court below. The report by the District Magistrate, Howrah, dated 21.4.71 is as follows: ?Judicial Magistrate is not under the control of District Magistrate, Howrah. So the explanation of District Magistrate does not arise. Return to the Asstt. Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side, Calcutta for information and taking necessary action.? The third Rule in Criminal Revision Case No. 159 of 1971 was also issued by the Single Bench on the 11th March, 1971 calling upon the District Magistrate, Howrah as also the opposite-party to show cause as to why the order complained of should not be set aside with an order for ad interim stay, staying the operation of the order of maintenance complained of on condition that the second-party petitioner shall go on depositing Rs.65/- per month as maintenance for the wife and the two children by the 7th of the following month. The report of the District Magistrate, Howrah, dated the 12th April, 1971 is as follows : ?This relates to Sri S. P. Sengupta, Judl. Magistrate, 1st Class, Howrah, who is not under the control of District Magistrate, Howrah. This may be returned back the same to the S.D.J.M. Howrah.?

(3.) Mr. S. Banerji, D.L.R. appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the reports submitted by the District Magistrate, are based on a misconception of the position in law. The District Magistrate, according to Mr. Banerjee, continues to represent the State, and it is his duty to decide whether the State should be represented at the time of the hearing. In this context he referred to the case of (1) Sm. Anurupa Devi, petitioner v. Ramlal Rajghoria and Anr. opposite party reported in 55 C.W.N. 160.