DAYARAM Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for transfer of Criminal Case No. 45 of 1927 from the file of the Second Class Magistrate, Saoner, to some other Court. The ground for the application is that, in a cross-case already decided by the same Magistrate, he has expressed an opinion that the present applicants were the aggressors in the alleged riot and that the applicant 1 was largely responsible therefor. I am asked, on the authority of Rangasami Goundan v. Emperor [1907] 30 Mad. 233 to transfer the case to another Court.

(2.) FOR my own part, I do not think that the opinion expressed in the cross-case, on evidence judicially recorded, is ipso facto a sufficient ground for transfer. This view has been followed in many reported cases of Asimaddi v. Govinda Baiday [1897] 1 C.W.N. 426, Emperor v. Hargobind [1911] 33 All. 583 and Rajani Kanta Dutt v. Emperor [1909] 36 Cal. 904. The question I am concerned with is, in reality, one of principle, viz., is the mere fact that the Magistrate has in a previous case expressed an opinion adverse to the applicants or any of them sufficient to raise a reasonable apprehension in their minds, that they will not have a fair trial. It is, no doubt, difficult to determine where the line should be drawn in a case like the present, but on the allegations in the application, I am not satisfied that sufficient and reasonable ground for the said apprehension has been made out. The Magistrate has still to try the present case and he must avoid being influenced by any impression he may have formed in the previous case. He must deal with the present case on its own merits and independently of the evidence produced in the previous case, or of his decision therein. I can see no reason to suppose that the Magistrate will not act accordingly and, in the circumstances, I see no reason to transfer the case. The application is dismissed without notice to the Crown.