BRIJ BEHARI DAS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(ALL)-1976-1-3
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on January 20,1976

BRIJ BEHARI DAS Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 20-8-1975 of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ballia in Cr. Revision No, 57 of 1974 by which he rejected the revision against the order dated 19-3-1974 of the Addl. District Magistrate (Judicial), Ballia in Cr. Revision No. 12 of 1972. A revision was then filed before the Addl. District Magistrate (Judicial) Ballia in a ease under Section 145, Cr. P. C. which was decided by the S. D. M. Ballia by his order dated 10-11-1972. An objection was raised before the Addl. District Magistrate (Judicial) Ballia that the revision was not entertainable by him in view of the Government Order No P8690/ ii-C-554/1961 dated September 29, 1967 (Appointment C Department), The Addl. District Magitsrate (Judicial) rejected that contention and ordered the case to be proceeded with. A revision was then filed before the Sessions Judge, Ballia which was ultimately decided by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ballia by the impugned order. It is not clear from the record but the learned Counsel for the applicant informs that this revision before the Sessions Judge was filed before 1st of April, 1974.
(2.) THE only point that arises for decision is as to whether the Addl. District Magistrate (Judicial) was empowered to entertain the revision against the orders passed by the Executive Magistrate under the scheme of Separation of Judiciary from the Executive contained in the aforesaid G. O. There appeared to be no direct authority on this point. I had, therefore, sent for all the relevant papers from the Administrative Department of the Court. Paragraph 3 of the aforesaid G. O. is as follows: (3) Disposal of criminal Case work.
(3.) THE present position is that Judicial Officers deal with all cases under the I. P. C. and are also empowered to take cognizance, under Clause (a) and Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 190, Cr. P. C. of offences under the I. P. C. They will continue to deal with all such oases after separation from October 2, 1967. The Executive Magistrate will continue to deal with the following cases and miscellaneous work as heretofore: (a) All cases under the Cr. P. C. , particularly under Sections 107/117, 109, 110, 145. (b) all oases under other miscellaneous local and Special Acts such as Arms Act, Excise Act, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Gambling Act, Essential Commodities Act, etc. (c) Conduct of identification proceedings, recording of dying declarations, confessions and statements under Section 154, Cr. P. C. Clause (1) of that G. O. deals with administrative control and its exercise. The relevant portion on which learned Counsel for the applicant has laid great stress may be reproduced as under: All members of the U. P. Judicial Officers Service whose names are given in the Annexure except the eight Additional Commissioners shown at numbers 1-6 and 8-9 will be placed under the administrative control of the High Court from October 2, 1967. They will form a separate wing under the High Court, and Will not be merged with the cadres of the U. P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) and the U. P. Higher Judicial Service. It is hereby clarified that notwithstanding Section 17 (5), Cr. P. C. the High Court will exercise its administrative control over Additional District Magistrates (Judicial) and other Magistrates belonging to the said service under Article 235 of the Constitution, through the District and Sessions Judges. The Additional District Magistrates (Judicial) who are already invested with all the powers of a District Magistrate will continue to exercise those powers in relation to Judicial Magistrates and Munsif Magistrates, while District Magistrates will continue to exercise similar powers in relation to the Executive Magistrates and Special Railway Magistrates. In respect of Sections 192 (1) and 528 (2), Cr. P. C. occasions may arise when a District Magistrate may have to transfer a case wrongly instituted in the Court of an Executive Magistrate to the Court of a Judicial Magistrate or, in a converse situation, an Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) may have to transfer a case to an Executive Magistrate, but these powers will, as a matter of convention, be exercised by the officers concerned only in consultation with their counterparts. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.