| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1962 SLG 2944 = 1962 SLD 2944 = 1962 PLD 574 |
Dacca High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 49 and 52 of 1960, decided on 3rd February 1961.
Presented By: Murshed and Siddiky, JJ
Abdul Hye Chowdhury Deputy Legal Remembrancer for the State. P. K. M. A. Munim for the Opposite-Parties.
Criminal Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 49 and 52 of 1960, decided on 3rd February 1961.
Presented By: Murshed and Siddiky, JJ
Abdul Hye Chowdhury Deputy Legal Remembrancer for the State. P. K. M. A. Munim for the Opposite-Parties.
THE STATE
VERSUS
HARMUZ MONDAL AND OTHERS-Opposite-parties [and another connected Appeal].
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: S. 526
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 526-Enables High Court to act on report made by subordinate Court and not on mere representation by Administrative Head-Action not administra tive-Decision to be taken judicially after notice to parties concerned. Court - Subordinate Court writing personally to Chief Justice or Judge of High Court on point of law-Not proper. JUDGMENT MURSHED, J.-These two miscellaneous cases have arisen out of the following circumstances . There were two criminal proceedings instituted in the Court of the Sub-DivisionalMagistrate of Jamalpur in the District of Mymensingh. It transpires that the occurrences, in respect of which the proceedings were started, took place in the District of Bogra. Therefore, it is evident that the Sub- Divisional Magistrate of Jamalpur was not competent to try the said two cases. Legally these cases can only be tried by a competent Magistrate in the District of Bogra. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Jamalpur resolved this difficulty by addressing a letter to the Chief Justice of this Court, stating the circumstances of the cases as mentioned above. Thereafter the matter came before us. We did not approve of the manner in which the matter was brought to our notice, butsince any other step that we might have taken would have involved a considerable delay in the trial of the cases, which have been pending for some time, we issued a suo motu Rule in each case calling upon the District Magistrate of Mymensingh and the accused opposite-parties to show cause as to why the aforesaid cases should not be transferred to a Magistrate competent to try the came in the District of Bogra. This course is open to us in view of the provisions of subsection (3) of section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides as follows: "(3) The High Court may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application of a party interested, of on its own initiative." At the hearing of these Rules the lawyer for the State as well as the lawyer for theopposite-parties submitted that the Rules should be made absolute. We think that this is the…