Kali Charan Mahto and others vs Emperor

Agrawala, J.—Seven persons were put on their trial on charges under Ss, 147 and 304, Penal Code, in the Court of the Magistrate of the First Class of Dhanbad, specially empowered under S. 30, Criminal P.C. An application for transfer of the case from the file of the learned trying Magistrate was made by five of the accused persons and a rule was issued. The petition, on which the rule was issued, contained allegations attributing to the learned trying Magistrate, remarks which, if true, would undoubtedly render him unfit to be a person to continue to exercise judicial functions. There were also statements regarding the Magistrate''s conduct of the proceedings which, if believed, would cast serious reflection on the Magistrate''s ability to preside over a criminal trial. The petition is supported by an affidavit sworn by one of the accused persons Kali Charan Mahto, who states that the facts alleged in the petition are true to his knowledge. At the hearing of the rule. Mr. Sinha very properly informed the Court that in view of the categorical denials contained in the explanation given by the learned Magistrate he was not in a position to support the rule.

The question then arises as to what course should be taken. The allegations in the affidavit must now be assumed to be absolutely unfounded and untrue. It is open to this Court to direct a complaint to be filed for the prosecution of the deponent; but under Sub-S. (6) (a) S. 526, Criminal P.C., the Court is also empowered to order the deponent to pay by way of compensation to the persons opposing the rule such sum (not exceeding Rs. 250) as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case. In all these circumstances of the case I decided to proceed under Sub-S. (6) (a), S. 526, Criminal P.C., and offered Mr. Sinha an opportunity to show cause if his clients so desired, why an order for compensation should not be made under that sub-section The accused did not require further opportunity to show cause. I now proceed to assess the compensation at the maximum fixed by the statute, viz., Rs. 250. This amount must be paid by the deponent Kali Charan Mahto. The rule has been opposed by the District Magistrate and will be recovered by him.