RAM SARUP Vs. MANGAL DASS AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order dated May 9, 1972, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. By this order, the learned Magistrate transferred a case from the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patti, to his own file. The main reason given by the accused respondent No. 4 in the transfer application before the learned lower Court was that he was working as an Assistant in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, and had to deal with public. Because of his absence from the office, the Government work would suffer. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate observed that there was no ground to assume that Shri Om Parkash Mahajan, respondent No. 4 would not get justice from the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patti, but because this respondent was a Government servant and the cases against the public servants we triable by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, he ordered the transfer of the case to his own file.

(2.) IN my considered opinion, both the grounds mentioned by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate are not tenable in taw. Normally speaking, an offence is triable at a place where it is committed. Merely because the accused person happens to be a public servant, it does not mean that the case should be transferred to his place of posting. The second ground urged by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is also not tenable because under High Court Rules and Orders, Volume III, Chapter VI, it has been provided that a Magistrate taking cognisance of an alleged offence against a public servant should report to the District Magistrate, who in turn is charged with the duty of forwarding a copy of this report to the department concerned. The object of this rule appears to be to inform the administrative department about the institution and the result of criminal cases against the public servants so that in the event of conviction of the Public servant the administrative department may be able to take further action. This rule does not mean that wherever a public servant is involved, the case should of necessity be transferred to the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(3.) FOR the reasons mentioned above, I set aside the order dated May 9, 1972, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and direct that the case be transferred back to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patti, for trial in accordance with law.