LUTTUR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case which have given rise to this reference are set out in extenso in the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of Benares, dated 16th September 1929, and require no recapitulation.

(2.) Luttur Balai, Ram Nath and Raghu were on their trial before a Special Magistrate of Jaunpur, under Section 324, I.P.C. During the progress of the trial one Luttur had applied to the Magistrate under Section 526(8), Criminal P. C, for stay of proceedings to enable him to move the High Court for the transfer of his case. The application was.granted, and the case was adjourned. Luttur did not apply to the High Court for the transfer of the case. He applied to the District Magistrate for a transfer, but his application was rejected, and he submitted to the order.

(3.) On 17 May 1929, Balai made a similar application, but his application was refused. A second application was made by Balai, on 18 May 1929, but this application shared the same fate. Between 18 May, and 23 May 1929, there were holidays in the lower Courts and also in the High Court consequent upon the Id-uz-Zoha. On 23 May 1929, Balai presented an application in the Court of the Magistrate stating that he had been to Allahabad to instruct his counsel to make the necessary application under Section 526, Criminal P. C, for the transfer of his case and that the application was going to be made immediately upon the opening of the High Court. He prayed further for the adjournment of the case till the matter had been finally disposed of by the High Court. This application was dismissed. Between 17 May 1929, and the date of the actual decision of this case, the proceedings in the Court of the Magistrate continued. The proceedings terminated in the conviction of all the four accused persons upon whom non- bailable sentences were passed. They moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Benares for the revision of the conviction, and the matter has been submitted to this Court under Section 438 Criminal P.C.