HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE facts of this case have been set out at length in our order of 11-11-1957, and do not need to be recapitulated.
(2.) IN his application dated 7-9-1957, the petitioner alleged that the District Magistrate of Karnal was not justified in transferring the enquiry under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal procedure from the Court of Mr. Onkar Nath, a senior confirmed lawyer Magistrate, to the Court of Mr. C. D. Khanna a junior Executive Magistrate, particularly when all the witnesses had been examined by Mr. Onkar Nath and the parties were not given a notice by the District Magistrate of his intention to transfer the case. The petitioner accordingly complained that in the circumstances of the case the exercise of powers under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court. This complaint, however, did not come up for consideration before us when the petition was heard, as we indicated to the parties during the course of arguments that a magistrate holding an enquiry under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be said to be performing the functions of a Court of law.
(3.) ON 10-10-1957, the petitioner reiterated his request that this enquiry should be removed from mr. C. D. Khanna who was attached to the Karnal District and transferred to a Magistrate who was attached to another district.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.