AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dhavle, J.—The order recommended for revision by the learned Sessions Judge
is clearly irregular and must be set aside. The party against whom the order passed by the Subdivisional Magistrate u/s 137, Criminal P.C., had appeared and showed cause against the preliminary order, and this order should not have been made absolute merely on a local inspection in the course of which it does not appear that the party concerned had any opportunity of offering any evidence.
I set the order aside, leaving it open to the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate to proceed further in the case in accordance with the law, if he should consider it necessary to proceed in the matter at all. The attention of the learned Sessions Judge should be drawn to Rule 84 at p. 31, in Part. 1, Chap. 13 of the High Court''s General Rules and Circular Orders (Criminal). It does not appear that in the present case the explanation of the Magistrate was called for by the Sessions Judge.
It is true that a notice of the motion to the Court of Session was given to the Public Prosecutor, but the Public Prosecutor said that he had no instructions. It may be that the Subdivisional Magistrate did not think it worth while to take steps to have his order supported, but it would have been better if we had had on record what the learned Magistrate had to say regarding the procedure that he had followed and that was challenged by the petitioner to the Court of Session.