NAMBIA PILLAI Vs. SUDALAIMUTHU NADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is argued on the authority of the decision of Ayling J. in Criminal Revision Case No. 328 of 1922 that the District Magistrate had no power to stay the trial of a Criminal Case in the Court of a Subordinate Magistrate in his District.

(2.) It is undeniable that the High Court is under the Government of India Act invested with powers of superintendence over all the Courts of justice in the Presidency and it has been held in Anna Ayyar V/s. Emperor (1906) I.L.R. 30 Mad. 226, that those powers include a power to direct "the stay of proceedings in such Courts.

(3.) Section 17 of the Criminal P. C. which declares all Magistrates and Benches of Magistrates in any District to be Subordinate to the District Magistrate of that District who is invested with powers to make rules and give special orders and Rule 122 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, which treats of his powers of supervision over their Magisterial work, suggest that a District Magistrate has wide powers of superintendence over his subordinate Magistrates which might be considered to justify special directions being issued by him to stop or go on with particular proceedings pending before them.