ISHER SINGH Vs. NIRMAL KAUR
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS is a transfer application preferred by Isher Singh accused praying that the case pending before Mr. R. P. Rampal, Magistrate First Class, Jammu, be transferred to the Court of some other Magistrate.
(2.) THE facts which gave rise to this application briefly stated are these. A complaint was brought by Mt. Nirmal Kaur under Section 376 of the Ranhir Penal Code against Isher Singh in the Court of Mr. R. P. Rampal, Magistrate First, class, Jammu. The Magistrate recorded the evidence and framed the charge against the accused. The Magistrate was then transferred and before the succeeding Magistrate the accused availed of the benefit under Section 350 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The succeeding Magistrate started 'de novo' trial and issued summons to the witnesses. He did not examine any witness and the original Magistrate was re-transferred to Jammu. An application was made by the complainant before the Additional District Magistrate for the transfer of the case to Mr R. P. Rampal Magistrate who originally tried the case on the ground that the case will be expeditiously disposed of by him. The Additional District Magistrate transferred the case to Mr. R. P. Rampal Magistrate First Class who originally was seized of the case. The accused has preferred an application in this Court for the transfer of the case from the Court of Mr. Rampal Magistrate First Class to the Court of some other Magistrate.
(3.) ON behalf of the applicant it is argued that the Additional District Magistrate should not have transferred the case to the Court of Mr. Rampal, Magistrate first class, on the ground that the case would be expeditiously disposed of as the accused will not be able to avail of the benefit of Section 350, Cr. P. C. It has been urged-that the view taken by the Additional District Magistrate is erroneous inasmuch as the accused is not barred from taking the benefit under Section 350, Cr. P. C. in the Court of the present Magistrate. In support of this contention reliance is placed on Ramalingam v. Emperor AIR (21) 1934 Mad 475 and Krishnaji v. Kashirao AIR (13) 1926 Nag 220.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.