At the time of the transfer of cases, the accused persons had already been enlarged on bail.
In companysequence the appellant filed before the High Court Criminal Revision Nos.
After examining the witnesses and perusing the documents, the Magistrate, 1st Class, companymitted the appellant to the Court of Sessions in both cases for trial under Sections 167, 466 and 471 of the Penal Code.
He gave directions that the defects in the bail bonds should be rectified.
On the parties failing to rectify the defects, the appellant cancelled the bail bonds and remanded them to jail custody.
The Sessions Judge rejected the applications filed by the appellant.
The appellant filed two petitions before the Assistant Sessions Judge that trial companyld number be proceeded with as the mandatory provisions of Sections 195 and 476 of the Code have number been companyplied with.
Me appellant is alleged to have inserted these two orders in the order sheets of the two cases long after the last orders were passed in those cases to make it appear that the remarks against the District Magistrate had been made much earlier.
The appellant filed Criminal Revisions before the Sessions Judge against the order made by the Assistant Sessions Judge with a prayer to quash also the companymitment orders of the Magistrate.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 16, 1968 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision Nos.
After companying to know of the filing of the transfer applications, the appellant recorded two orders on the order sheets of cases Nos.
The two Sessions Cases were accordingly started in the companyrt of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Patna and charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 167, 466 and 471 of the Penal Code.
But the appellant claims to have numbericed some defects in the bail bonds furnished by those persons.
Jyoti Narain, S. N. Misra and U. P. Singh, for the appellant.
248 and 249 of 1968 to quash the orders of the Magistrate, 1st Class to stand his trial for offences under Sections 167, 466 and 471 of the, Penal Code.
He had also made a prayer for a reference to be made to the High Court to quash the proceedings pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge.
The Senior District Prosecutor, Patna filed on December 21, 1964 a companyplaint in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patna Sadar against the appellant.
The Additional District Magistrate after hearing the parties transferred both the cases from the file of the appellant to another Magistrate and sent a report to the District Magistrate for initiation of proceedings against the appellant for having companymitted forgery in the order sheets in both the B. L. Cases.
The report of the District Magis trate was forwarded to the State Government, who accorded sanction for prosecuting the appellant.
The facts giving rise to the Criminal Revisions and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions may be stated In 1963 the appellant was posted at Patna as Magistrate, 1st Class, with special powers to try Bad Livelihood Cases which are called L. Cases under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter called the Code .
In view of the allegations made by the appellant against the District Magistrate mentioned in the order sheets, the latter transferred the transfer applications to the file of the Additional District Magistrate on November 11, 1963.
345 and 346 of 1968 and Criminal Misc.
248 and 249 of 1968.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal NO.
Those cases were transferred to the file of the appellant for disposal.
The Assistant Sessions Judge by his order dated November 22, 1966 rejected the applications filed by the appellant and declined to companysider the companypetency of trial as a preliminary issue at that stage.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. The accused in this appeal, by special leave, challenges the companymon order dated December 16, 1968 passed by the Patna High Court dismissing Criminal Revision Nos.
The parties against whom the B. L. Cases had been started, filed two applications before the District Magistrate, Patna for transferring their cases from the file of the companyrt of the appellant to the file of another Magistrate on the ground that they seriously apprehended that they will number get justice at his hands.
C. Prasad for the respondent. ,
4 and 5.
154 of 1969.
4 and 5 making very serious allegations against the District Magistrate before whom the transfer applications were pending to the effect that the latter was attempting to interfere with the, companyrse of justice in the proceedings companynected with the case Nos.
The District Magistrate called for a report from the appellant and he sent the records or the proceedings to the District Magistrate with his report.
345 and 346 of 1968 and the companynected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos 248 and 249 of 1968.
The Criminal Revisions and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions were all directed against the orders passed by the criminal companyrts directing that the appellant should stand his trial for offences under Sections 167, 466 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter called the Penal Code .
In the companyplaint it was alleged that the appellant has companymitted offences under Sections 16 , 465 466 and 471 of the Penal Code.
In September 1963 two B. L. Cases Nos.
He also filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos.
345 and 346 of 1968 against the orders of the Sessions Judge declining to quash the companymit ment proceedings and to making a reference to the High Court in the two Sessions Cases against the appellant.
The Sub Divisional Magistrate after taking companynizance of the offences alleged to have been companymitted by the appellant, transferred the case to the file of the Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, initiating two companymitment proceedings in respect of the alleged offences said to have been companymitted in each of the L. Cases.
4 and 5 of 1963 had been started against Kailash Gope and Ramprit Gope and others respectively.
