BHAGWATICHARAN RAVISHANKAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three applications for transfer of three cases pending against the Petitioner in the Court of Presidency Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaum, Bombay. The Petitioner is charged with having committed offences under Section 332, I. P. C. and of being in unlawful possession of a revolver without a license. The offences are alleged to have been committed sometime in July or August 1954. The cases reached hearing in September 1955. The Petitioner had not remained present on earlier occasions and the learned Magistrate was required to issue warrant for securing the presence of the Petitioner. On 14-9-1955 evidence for the prosecution was recorded and charge was framed against the Petitioner, and the cases stood adjourned to 23-9-1955 for further cross-examination of the witness. On 23-9-1955 the petitioner did not remain present in Court, and the learned Magistrate issued warrant for arrest of the Petitioner. It is thereafter that the present petitions have been filed in this Court for transfer of the cases.

(2.) ON behalf of the petitioner it is urged that the Petitioner is a member of the parliament and therefore the learned trial Magistrate should have adjourned the case so as to enable the petitioner to attend the session of the Parliament in the month of September 1955. We have not been referred to any provision of the law which requires a Magistrate before whom a case is pending in which a member of Parliament is concerned to adjourn the proceedings so as to enable the member of Parliament to attend the session of Parliament in preference to the proceedings in Court. It may be that the Magistrate may if proper grounds are made out look to the conveniences of a person who is an elected representative in the Legislature and adjust the dates for hearing so as to enable him to attend the Court as well the session of the legislature. But there is no rule which requires Criminal Court to adjourn proceedings pending before it in which a member of legislature is concerned to enable him to attend a session of the legislature. In any event failure to grant adjournment in order to enable a member of the legislature to attend the legislature cannot by any stretch of imagination indicate that the Magistrate is prejudiced against the member of the Legislature. That is the only ground which is urged before us in support of the three petitions.

(3.) THE petitions are rejected.