LAWS(PVC)-1934-8-139

DEODHARI RAI Vs. EMPEROR

Decided On August 14, 1934
DEODHARI RAI Appellant
V/S
EMPEROR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by a person who was convicted by a Magistrate of an offence under Section 471, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. The accused is a resident of Hajipur, and the offence is alleged to have been committed in the District of Muzaffarpur of which Hajipur is the southern sub-division. Haying been convicted he appealed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court of Muzaffarpur covers two Districts-Motihari in the north and Muzaffarpur including the Subdivision of Hanpur in the south. The learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the Additional Sessions Judge for trial. At the time of the transfer, the Additional Sessions Judge was occupied in hearing cases in Motihari, and the accused was duly informed and so was the Public Prosecutor.

(2.) On the 29 May the case was received by the Additional Sessions Judge by transfer and he noted that as he would be engaged in trying a Sessions case at Motihari on the date fixed, that is on the 31 May, the case was adjourned to 14 June 1934, for hearing at Motihari, and the parties were duly informed. On the 14 June the appellant put in a petition, stating that as he was a resident of Hajipur Sub-division, he could not engage a lawyer at Motihari and he asked for an adjournment to some other date and for the hearing of his appeal at Muzaffarpur. But the learned Additional Sessions Judge said that no adjournment would be granted, the appellant had ample notice of the hearing of the appeal at Motihari and his pleader had been informed as far back as the 1 June, as his signature on the order-sheet showed. The appellant not apparently provided with legal facilities appeared and made his protest then and there.

(3.) The appeal was heard, and the appellant was heard in person and the Public Prosecutor was heard for the Crown, and the result was that on the ultimate hearing on the 21 June the judgment was delivered dismissing the appeal. Now, it is perfectly clear that the Sessions judge had jurisdiction to transfer the case to the Additional Sessions Judge. It is perfectly clear also that whereas the Sessions Division of Muzaffarpur covers both Motihari and Muzaffarpur Districts, the appeal could as a matter of law, be heard at Motihari. It is a matter of discretion for the Sessions Judge, or the Additional Sessions Judge, when the matter comes before him on appeal to decide in which district it shall be heard; but that discretion must be exercised in a judicial manner and reasonable attention must be paid to the interest of the appellant.