JAGGU AHIR Vs. MURLI SHUKUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question referred to is whether the High Court has jurisdiction, under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the Letters Patent, especially Section 22, to transfer from the Court of one Magistrate to the Court of another Magistrate a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) There is a conflict of authority on the point. In In re Pandurang Govind Pujari 25 B. 179, it was held that the High Court had no power, under Section 526 of the Code, to transfer a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code from one Court to another. The reason given is that such a proceeding is not a "criminal cafe" within the meaning of Section 526; that a criminal case means a case arising out of and dealing with some crime already committed and does not include proceedings taken for the prevention of a crime. The Madras High Court, in In re Arumuga Tegundan 26 M. 188, dissented from the Bombay case. The learned Judges said: "We have no doubt of our power to transfer this case both under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Clause 29 of the Letters Patent. If a case under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a "criminal case", it is difficult to conceive what it is. With all respect, we are unable to agree with the decision of the Bombay High Court In re Pundurang Govind Pujari 25 B. 179". In Lolit Mohan Moitra v. Surja Kanta Acharjee 28 C. 709 Ghose, J., held as follows: An investigation under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an inquiry within the meaning of Clause (a) of Section 526 of that Code.

(3.) A Magistrate trying a case under Section 145 is a Criminal Court within the meaning of the Code.