BABU ULFAT RAI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision. The order I am asked to revise is an order passed by the Sessions Judge of Mainpuri. It is dated the 1st. of September 1919 and was passed in the case of King-Emperor v. Babu Ulfat Rai. That order is on the record. It directs that Babu Ulfat Rai should be prosecuted for offences falling under Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. It further directs under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code that the case be sent down to the District Magistrate for trial by himself or any First Class Magistrate subordinate to him. There has been a great deal of argument addressed to me, but the only point that I have to consider is whether the action of the learned Sessions Judge in passing the order under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was contrary to law. According to an affidavit which will be found on the record and which is dated the 15th of September 1919, that being the date on which the affidavit was affirmed before a Notary Public, Babu Ulfat Rai was served with a notice to show cause on the 20th of August 1919. as to why he should not be prosecuted under Sections 193 and 196, It is asserted in the affidavit that Babu Ulfat Rai at once applied for urgent copies of the statements of witnesses recorded in his absence against him and of other papers. These copies were not supplied to the applicant by the 1st of September 1919, the date on which the order already alluded to was passed under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That Babu Ulfat Rai applied more than once and applied in vain for adjournments to enable him to put himself in a position to show cause.

(2.) What then I have to determine is whether the order passed on the 1st of September 1919 is correct, legal, proper or otherwise and whether the proceedings of the Court passing the order have been regular. The Court which passed the order was, as has been already noticed, a Criminal Court. The officer presiding in that Court was an officer of experience and standing. (1) He had jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (2) If he considered it necessary, he had to make a preliminary enquiry. (3) And then to send the case for enquiry or trial to the nearest Magistrate of the First Class.

(3.) There is nothing in Section 476 which requires a Criminal Court, before passing an order under Section 476, to issue notice upon the accused to show cause why action should not be taken under Section 476. So far then the proceedings taken by the Sessions Court appear to have been regular throughout. The order passed appears to have been correct and legal. It only remains for me to decide whether the order, considering the circumstances under which it was passed, was proper.