EMPEROR Vs. ALLAH MAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference to this Court; by the District Magistrate of Bulandshahr, the object of which apparently is to complain against, and to invoke the reversionary powers of the High Court with regard to an order of the Sessions Judge. For reasons which will appear in a moment, we can do no more than express an academic opinion about the decision of the Sessions Judge against which complaint is made

(2.) We have no jurisdiction to entertain this reference at all. It is not made to us under any section of the law, or under any known procedure. It stands no higher as a matter which we can entertain in due course of law, than a letter or complaint sent to the High Court in-formally by any.citizen. As a matter of strict procedure, it should never have been put up before a Judge in Court at all, although one can understand that the officials in the office entertained some doubt as to whether they ought to disregard it altogether or whether they ought to lay it before a Judge in Court to be dealt with. In future; the Trial Clerk and his department must disregard all such petitions, references or complaints, not made according to recognize procedure, and should submit them through the Registrar to the Chief Justice, for him to make such order as he in his discretion, thinks desirable under the circumstances. We wish to make this clear beyond question or possibility of misunderstanding. Otherwise if other Magistrates, or other persons concerned to question an order made by a competent Court of superior jurisdiction, like the Sessions Judge in criminal matters, chose to follow the unprecedented course adopted by the Acting District Magistrate in this case the office of the High Court would be inundated with petitions and documents by way of complaint, without any legal foundation, and which would cause a serious amount of embarrassment and superfluous labour.

(3.) What happened in this case was as follows. Various charges and complaints were made with reference to a cattle trespass and a marpit, which ended in the death of a woman. The police sent up the case under Section 304, in addition to other sections, and other complaints were made by private complain ants before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer (we will omit for the moment other proceedings which were dealt with by him) dealt with the charge under Section 304 in this way. He does not appear to have decided judicially that the charge was groundless and that the evidence did not establish any case but he altered the charge to one under Section 304A, there by dropping altogether the charge under Section 304, and than proceeded to dismiss the case, which he could not have done if the charge under Section 304 had remained. We pass by for a moment the consideration of the question how far this order was in fact or could be in law, interfered with by the Sessions Judge. What happened then was that the complainant applied in revision which he had a perfect right to do, to the Sessions Judge, to reverse the order of the Magistrate; and the Sessions Judge entertaining the matter under Section 437, as he had a perfect right to do, decided for reasons which he expressed judicially in an order, that the Magistrate had not acted according to law, and that the case ought to be committed to the Sessions under the original charge, Section 304.