BASO RAI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners were ordered by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Deoghar to furnish security on bonds of Rs. 600 each with two sureties each of Rs. 250 each to be of good behaviour for two years, and a reference under Section 123, Criminal P.C., has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge of the Santal Parganas.

(2.) There has been an unfortunate error in the proceedings, because the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate first made a reference to the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate of the Santal Parganas, and, when that officer held that he had no jurisdiction, the Sub-divisional Magistrate made a reference to the Additional Sessions Judge direct, and it was only when that officer returned the proceedings that he finally made a reference to the Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, who subsequently transferred the reference to the Additional Sessions Judge of the Santal Parganas for disposal.

(3.) The first point urged on behalf of the petitioners was that the reference did lie to the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate Reliance was placed on the Santal Parganas Justice (Amendment) Regulation, 1940, which provides that the Criminal P.C., 1898, shall have effect in the Santal Parganas subject to certain modifications specified therein. That Regulation certainly requires that appeals from, convictions by 1 class Magistrate shall lie to the District Magistrate, and not to the Sessions Judge; but I can find nothing in the Regulation which affects Section 123, Criminal P.C., and I, therefore, hold that the final reference was correctly made to the Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, who is also Sessions Judge of the Santal Parganas.