KASINATH PANIGRAHI AND 22 ORS. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition in revision against an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate of Ganjam (Judicial) setting aside an order of discharge, passed by a First Class Magistrate (Executive) of Chatrapur in a commitment proceeding for an offence under Section 395 Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 31 -1 -1951 held that no prima facie case was made out against the accused persons and discharged them under Section 207A Code of Criminal Procedure. On that day the scheme of separation of the Judiciary from the Executive was not in operation in the District of Ganjam. Against the order of discharge, a revision petition a under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure was filed before the Additional District Magistrate (Executive) Ganjam on 10 -3 -1961. During the pendency of that petition the scheme of separation was introduced in the district of Ganjam on 25 -10 -1961. Thereupon the said revision petition appears to have been transferred to the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), who, after hearing the parties, passed final orders directing the commitment of the accused.

(2.) MR . Misra for the Petitioner rightly contended relying on the Executive Instructions dealing with allocation of functions between the Judiciary any the Executive that the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) had no jurisdiction to revise a final order passed by the Executive Magistrate. This is clear from a perusal of the said Executive Instructions, dealing with Sections 435, 436 and 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are as follows :

(3.) THESE observations also apply to the connected Criminal Revision Petition No. 4 of 1961, between the same parties, which was filed before the Additional District Magistrate on 31st May 1961 prior to the introduction of the scheme of separation. In that case also all orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) subsequent to 25th October, 1961 are set aside and the revision petition is restored to the file of the Additional District Magistrate (Executive) who may then dispose of it according to law, after hearing it analogously with Criminal Revision petition No. 6 of 1961.