Sunder Singh vs The State

Harnam Singh, J.—In proceedings u/s 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, hereinafter referred to as the Act, Sundar Singh accused urged a preliminary objection that inasmuch as the provisions of Section 3 (2) (c) of the Act had not been satisfied the order of the District Magistrate, Amritsar, fixing the price of salt had no binding force. In that application Sundar Singh accused claimed the decision of the preliminary objection before proceeding with the trial of the case on merits.

In deciding that application the Magistrate said :

"In view of the letter No. 184-63, dated 12-3-1951, from the Home Secretary to Government Punjab, I will decide this point at the proper stage. The application is too much before time."

Sundar Singh applies under Sections 526 and 561A, Criminal P. C., and Article 227, Constitution of India, for the transfer of the case, State versus Sundar Singh, from the Court of ''Sardar'' Kehar Singh Magistrate to some other Court of competent jurisdiction, or in the alternative for quashing the proceedings against the accused.

Now, the procedure that is to be followed by the Magistrates in warrant cases is given in Chap. 20, Criminal P. C. Section 252 of the Code reads :

"(1) When the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, such Magistrate shall proceed to hear the complainant (if any) and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution; Provided that the Magistrate shall not be bound to hear any person as complainant in any case in which the complaint has been made by a Court.

(2) The Magistrate shall ascertain, from the complainant or otherwise, the names of any persons likely to be acquainted with the facts of the case and to be able to give evidence for the prosecution and shall summon to give evidence before himself such of them as he thinks necessary."

No evidence has so far been examined in the case.

Clearly, in the case out of which these proceedings have arisen the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate is to examine evidence u/s 252, Criminal P. C., and then to consider whether the evidence examined u/s 252, Criminal P. C., is such that on that evidence no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction. In case he finds that on that evidence no such case has been made out the Magistrate shall discharge the accused.

In civil cases Rule 2, of Order 14, Civil P. C., provides for the determination of issues of law in the first instance if the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issue of law only. No such provision is to be found in the Code of Crimi-nal Procedure.

That being the situation of matters, I do not think that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate contravenes the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in that behalf.

No other point arises in these proceedings.

Finding that the procedure adopted by the Court is in accordance with the provisions of the Code, I do not think the accused-petitioner has made out a case for the withdrawal of the case from that Court or for the quashing of the proceedings.

In the result the petition fails and is dismissed.