BHAGWAN DAS Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases No. 156 and No. 157 of 1924, have arisen out of a single reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Meerut.

(2.) It appears that one Bhagwan Das was triad at the instance of one Siddiq Ali and was convicted under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code by a summary trial, and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200. A revision against this conviction and sentence was filed before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge and was transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge hearing cases from Muzaffarnagar District. There was another criminal case against the same person, Bhagwan Das, and as the result of that case he was convicted of an offence under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 300. Against this conviction and sentence Bhagwan Das appealed to the Sessions Judge of Meerut and the appeal in the ordinary course was transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge hearing cases from Muzaffarnagar. At the instance of the learned District Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar the learned Sessions Judge got the records of the two cases and wanted to hear them himself. Objection was taken before him that it was not probably right for him to do so, as he had no jurisdiction to withdraw cases which had bean transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has accordingly sent up this reference to this Court asking for a ruling whether he has got jurisdiction to hear the appeal and the application for revision; and, if not, requesting the Court to transfer the oases to his Court.

(3.) As a matter of procedure it may be pointed out for the guidance of Courts below that the Crown is as much a party before the Sessions Judge as the accused person. Any motion that has to be made before the Sessions Judge should, therefore, be through the Government Pleader and not by an "official" or "demiofficial" letter from the District Magistrate as representing the Crown. The proper course, therefore, should have been for the Government Pleader to make an application to the learned Sessions Judge to re-transfer the cases to his file.