JASWANT SINGH Vs. PRITAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. Prem Nath Aggarwal for the respondent, relying on an unreported judgment of this Court by a learned Single Judge, contends that after amendments introduced by the Punjab Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1964. the Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition against an order by an Executive Magistrate under Section 145, of the Cr. P Code. That judgment was delivered by Khosla J. in Cr. Revision No. 877 of 1965. on the 24th march. 1966 : (AIR 1967 Punj 191 ). and it does support the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that even after the above noted amendments, the power of the Sessions Judge under Section 435. Cr procedure Code still remains intact, since an executive Magistrate does not cease to be an inferior Criminal Court, and consequently challenges the correctness of the decision in Cr. R. No. 877 of 1965 : (AIR 1967 Punj 191 ). A large number of cases of this nature are likely to arise, and it is desirable that the matter is settled by a bigger bench finally. Let this case be placed before my Lord the Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench to hear this petition early. OPINION mehar Singh, C. J. , and D. K. , Mahajan, J. (23--8-1966)

(2.) ON a police report under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an executive Magistrate, trying the case, made an order adverse to the petitioners, jaswant Singh and Surjit Singh, and their father, Shivdev Singh, on May 24, 1965. It is not necessary to go into the details of that order for the present purpose The petitioners made a revision application against that order of the Executive magistrate in the Court of the Sessions Judge at Ferozepore. The application was heard by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, who, on July 27, 1965, recommended interference by this Court in the order of the Executive Magistrate to a certain extent explained by the learned Judge in his order of reference.

(3.) ON the reference coming for hearing before Jindra Lal J. , the learned counsel for the respondents relying on Budh Ram v. Puran Dass, 1966-68 Pun LR 490 : (AIR 1967 Punj 191), urged that the order of the learned Sessions Judge making reference of the case to this Court was without jurisdiction, but the learned counsel for the petitioners contended otherwise. In these circumstances Jindra Lal j. was of the opinion that an important question as to the jurisdiction of a Sessions judge in such circumstances has arisen and as it is likely to arise in future, so the answer to the question should be given by a larger Bench. This is how the case comes before this Bench. 3a. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, suffered considerable amendment by reason of the enactment of the Punjab Separation of Judicial and Executive functions Act, 1964 (Punjab Act 25 of 1964) which was brought into force on october 2. 1964, The reference to the Sections of the Code is, unless stated otherwise, to the thus amended Code. Section 6 deals with classes of Courts which are two, that is to say. (i) Courts of Session; and (ii) Courts of Magistrates. Section 6-A concerns the classes of Magistrates, and there is first. Judicial magistrates, and secondly Executive Magistrates There are four types of Judicial magistrates including Chief Judicial Magistrates at number one, and again there are four types of Executive Magistrates including District Magistrates at number one. and Sub-Divisional Magistrates at number two, but both classes of magistrates come under the classification of 'courts of Magistrates' in Section 6 section 17-B reads