MOTI LAL Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an accused's application in revision from the order of Mr. Durga Prasad, District Magistrate. Ajmer-Merwara, Ajmer, dated 20-7-1949, rejecting his application for transfer of the case pending against him from Ajmer to Beawar u/S. 528, Cr. P. C.,

(2.) The application for transfer to the District Magistrate was made mainly on the ground that the transfer would tend to the general convenience of the parties. The contention of the counsel for the prosecution before the Court is that no application in revision lies from an order rejecting an application for transfer u/S. 528, Cr. P. C. He has in support of this cited the rulings as reported in Ashu V/s. Mg Po Khan,1925 CrLJ 485(Rang) and Hari Ram V/s. Allah Bakhsh,1934 CrLJ 630 (Lah); Udhomal Karmumal v, Mt. Majnibai, 34 Cr LJ 861 (Sind). The perusal of these rulings goes to show that the High Court has no power u/S. 139, Cr. P. C., to revise an order of the District Magistrate rejecting an application for the transfer of a case made u/S. 528, Cr. P. C. and that the remedy in the matter lies, if at all, by way of an application to the High Court u/S. 526, Cr. P. C. The counsel for the applicant says that application in revision be treated as an application u/S. 526, Cr. P. C. This obviously cannot be allowed to be done for the application is not supported by affidavit nor a notice thereof has been given to the Public Prosecutor.

(3.) Even on merits there appears to be no substance in the application. The District Magistrate has given reasons in detail as to why he is against the transfer of the case from Ajmer to Beawar. There appears to be no valid reason for me to hold otherwise. The two stations are connected directly both by rail and road. The distance between them is only about 33 miles. The case has been pending at Ajmer for about two years. Had there been any truth in the allegations as now tried to be made out by the applicant, an application for transfer of the case would have been made long back. The District Magistrate in his order writes to say that the work at Ajmer is much lighter than that at Beawar and that the convenience of the parties would be best served if the case is now expeditiously disposed of. There is thus no reason as to why the Court should direct the transfer of the case from Ajmer to Beawar.