9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Sub-divisional Magistrate to transfer a case without issuing process against accused persons. 2. Validity of cancellation of bail bond and issuance of non-bailable warrant by the Munsif Magistrate. Analysis: 1. The case involved two applications challenging orders dated 25th May, 1973, and 23rd June, 1973, by the Sub-divisional Magistrate and Munsif Magistrate, respectively. The Sub-divisional Magistrate took cognizance of offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and transferred the case to the Munsif Magistrate for disposal without issuing process against the accused. The petitioners argued that this transfer was beyond the Sub-divisional Magistrate's jurisdiction as the case was instituted on a police report. Reference was made to a previous Bench decision, but the court found the facts of this case to be distinguishable, thus the previous decision was not applicable. The court emphasized that the accused were aware of the proceedings and the transfer, so the lack of a formal order for process issuance did not prejudice them. 2. The court delved into the legal provisions under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires a Magistrate taking cognizance to issue process if there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. It was highlighted that in cases initiated through a police report, the Magistrate must apply their mind to the case's facts and issue process if deemed necessary. The court agreed with a previous decision that emphasized the importance of the Magistrate issuing process before transferring the case. However, it was noted that if accused persons are already present and on bail, the Magistrate may not need to issue process before transferring the case, as it would be a mere formality. The court cited a previous case where it was held that if all accused persons are present, on bail, and the Magistrate is satisfied with grounds for proceeding, the transfer without issuing process is valid. 3. In conclusion, the court found no illegality in the orders of the Sub-divisional Magistrate and Munsif Magistrate. It dismissed both applications, affirming the actions taken by the Magistrates. Judge Udai Sinha concurred with the decision. This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Patna High Court provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues surrounding the jurisdiction of the Magistrates in transferring the case and the validity of the subsequent actions taken.
|
