STATE Vs. NRUSINGHA PADHIARY AND 23 ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure made by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Cuttack, recommending the quashing of an order dated 30 -8 -1969 passed by the trial Court. The trying magistrate in this case is the Subordinate Judge cum Magistrate First Class, Jajpur. He is thus a senior Judicial Officer. The case was one under Section 147, 337 and 149, Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) withdrew the case from the file of the S.D.M. (Judicial) by his order dated 21.4.1969 and transferred it to the Court of Shri B. Patnaik, Subordinate Judge cum Magistrate, First Class Jajpur for trial in accordance with law. I do not have the observations of the learned Sessions Judge made on the notes of inspection which are referred to in the order dated 21.4.1969, but obviously there was some observation which need the transfer of the case to a competent Court. After the case was received on transfer on 24.4.1969 non -bailable warrant was ordered to issue against the accused persons as they were not in attendant on 15.5.1969, some accused persons entered appearance and for the appearance of others time was granted till 10 -7 -1969. The accused persons were again absent and, therefore, non -bailable warrant was issued fixing the case to 7 -8 -1969, the following order was passed:

(2.) I cannot lose sight of the fact that the order in question is not written in proper English. There are several mistakes in the small order which is impugned in this case. As long as I Court 's proceedings are carried on in the English language mistakes, cannot be permitted. The learned Magistrate should have been very careful to see that the order -sheet was properly maintained and was written in proper English as it should have been.

(3.) I am strongly of the opinion that the learned Magistrate has failed to discharge the duties of a Magistrate as conferred under the law and it is a fit case where he should be severely ensured. Steps should be taken to find out whether magisterial power would be continued with him any further and if the Court is satisfied on the administrative side that he should not be continued with magisterial power, immediate action should be taken to withdraw the magisterial power from this senior judicial officer. It is a slur on the administration of justice that this attitude is being taken by senior judicial officers in discharge of judicial duty.