AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ayling and Napier, JJ.—In this case, we are asked to revise an order of the Additional District Magistrate of Tanjore transferring three
criminal cases at the request of a party from the file of the Second-class Magistrate of Valangiman to that of the Stationary Second-class
Magistrate of Papanasam u/s 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The main ground put forward is that the Subdivisional Magistrate having previously refused to transfer the oases at the request of the same
party, the District Magistrate was precluded from exercising his power of transfer. Petitioners'' vakil admits that it would have been open to the
District Magistrate to make the transfer on his own initiative, irrespective of any previous order of the Subdivisional Magistrate.
We can find nothing in Section 528 of Code of Criminal Procedure supporting Petitioners contention: and the judgment of a Bench of this Court
in Thaman Chetti v. Alagiri Chetti ILR (1891) Mad. 399, is distinct authority against him. Petitioners rely on the decision of Bhashyam Ayyangar,
J., in Raghunatha Pandaram v. King-Emperor ILR (1903) Mad. 140, which has been followed in a recent unreported case--Narayanaswamy
Ayyar v. Kuppuswamy Ayyar Criminal Revision Case No. 487 of 1916. So far as appears the decision in Thaman Chetti v. Alagiri Chetti ILR
(1891) Mad. 399, was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge in Raghunatha Pandaram v. King-Emperor ILR (1903) Mad. 140: and with
great deference we are unable to agree in the view taken by him. The distinction in this respect between orders passed by the District Magistrate
suo motu and orders passed on petitions by parties appears to us to be without foundation.
No otter valid reason is shown for our interference: and we dismiss the petition.