JADUNANDAN LAL Vs. RAMPEYARE SAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application against an order of the Subdivisional Magistrate of Hajipur "dropping" a proceeding which had been started before him under Section 133, Criminal P.C. So far as the present application is concerned, all that it is necessary to state is that the matter was fixed to be taken up by the Magistrate in camp on 28 February 1941. It appears that on that date a suggestion emanated from somebody that the dispute between the parties being a petty one it might be settled to the satisfaction of all parties if the opposite party made a donation to the war fund. The case was postponed until 18 March and again to 30 March. On the last mentioned date the order-sheet of the Magistrate records, "The applicant does not want to proceed with the case. Kule dropped". The mukhtear who was appearing for the applicant in the proceeding has sworn an affidavit that at no time did he consent to the dropping of the case or to any adjournment on 28 February or 18 March and that he did not consent to the case being taken up on 30 March which was a Sunday. The affidavit states that in point of fact the mukhtear was not present on that date . The order-sheet of the Magistrate nowhere discloses that the parties agreed that this proceeding should be taken up on a Sunday which is a dies non. There is a considerable difference of opinion in the case as to who originated the suggestion that the dispute should be settled by a donation to the war fund. The Magistrate denies that the suggestion emanated from him. Each of the disputing parties alleges that his opponent made this suggestion. In, my opinion, it is immaterial to consider from whom the suggestion emanated. It is sufficient to say that disputes in the Courts of this country have to be decided on the merits in accordance with the law and procedure which has been prescribed by the Legislature, and that it is highly improper for any Magistrate or any presiding officer of a Court to invite subscriptions to public or charitable funds from anybody appearing in his Court either in the capacity of a party or a witness or professionally, or to entertain suggestions made by anybody else that donations should be accepted from such persons. Whatever may be the merits of the present dispute, I am quite satisfied that the proceeding was discontinued not because of lack of merit in the original application but because one party eventually agreed to make a donation of Rs. 200 to some fund or other. The order of the Magistrate dropping the proceeding is set aside and he is directed to refund the sum of Rs. 200 to the opposite party and continue the proceedings from the point at which they were discontinued.