PRATINGA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS so called revision is directed against the order of the District Magistrate, jalore, dated 1-5-1957, by which he transferred a case against the petitioner under Section 411, I. P. C. , pending in the Court of the First'class Magistrate, jalore.

(2.) IT is contended that the application for transfer before the District Magistrate was made by the complainant Harji and not by the State and further that the application was opposed by the State, and yet the learned District Magistrate, for reasons whieh are not very clear or cogent, has ordered the transfer of the case from the Court of the Magistrate where it had been pending right up to the stage of arguments.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised before me that this application should not be entertained here because it is the invariable practice of this Court not to entertain revisional applications unless, the party coming up in revision has first approached the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate as the case may be. Reliance is placed in support of this contention on my decision in Sukhlal v. The state, ILR (1955) 5 Raj 523: (AIR 1955 Raj 177) (A ). I may point out at once that that was a slightly different case. In that case, the accused was committed by a magistrate to stand his trial in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, banswara. The accused came up to this Court with a prayer that the order of commitment be quashed on the ground that there was no evidence worth the name on the basis of which the Magistrate could have committed the accused. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the State that the accused should have submitted his application in the first instance to the Sessions Judge concerned. It was held by me that this Court undoubtedly had the jurisdiction and authority to hear such an application direct, and that the objection raised on behalf of the State was not intended to question that authority. The question nevertheless arose whether this Court should insist on such an application being filed before the Sessions Judge in the first instance before the petitioner came up to this Court, and I came to the conclusion that there was a good deal in favour of the practice followed by this Court because that would enable it to have the considered opinion of the Sessions Judge in the matter when this Court was called upon to exercise its own authority therein. Consequently, I took the view that the petitioner should make his applications before the Sessions judge in the first instance and then come up to this Court if necessary. I also held that Section 215, Cr. P. C. was no bar to such a procedure being followed.