P L D 1962 Dacca 574 (PLP)
THE STATE Versus HARMUZ MONDAL AND OTHERS‑Opposite‑parties [and another connected Appeal].
| Citation | P L D 1962 Dacca 574 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | HARMUZ MONDAL AND OTHERS‑Opposite‑parties and another connected Appeal. |
| Bench Members | Murshed and Siddiky, JJ |
| Parties | THE STATE Versus HARMUZ MONDAL AND OTHERS‑Opposite‑parties [and another connected Appeal]. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1962 Dacca 574 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1962 Dacca 574 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the HARMUZ MONDAL AND OTHERS‑Opposite‑parties and another connected Appeal. bench comprising: Murshed and Siddiky, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1962 Dacca 574 (PLP) (THE STATE Versus HARMUZ MONDAL AND OTHERS‑Opposite‑parties [and another connected Appeal].). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 526‑Enables High Court to act on report made by subordinate Court and not on mere representation by Administrative Head‑Action not administra tive‑Decision to be taken judicially after notice to parties concerned. (b) Court ‑ Subordinate Court writing personally to Chief Justice or Judge of High Court on point of law‑Not proper. Abdul Hye Chowdhury Deputy Legal Remembrancer for the State. P. K. M. A. Munim for the Opposite‑Parties.
Judgment & Decree
MURSHED, J.‑These two miscellaneous cases have arisen out of the following circumstances .
2. There were two criminal proceedings instituted in the Court of the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate of Jamalpur in the District of Mymensingh. It transpires that the occurrences, in respect of which the proceedings were started, took place in the District of Bogra. Therefore, it is evident that the Sub- Divisional Magistrate of Jamalpur was not competent to try the said two cases. Legally these cases can only be tried by a competent Magistrate in the District of Bogra.
3. The Sub‑Divisional Magistrate of Jamalpur resolved this difficulty by addressing a letter to the Chief Justice of this Court, stating the circumstances of the cases as mentioned above. Thereafter the matter came before us.
4. We did not approve of the manner in which the matter was brought to our notice, but since any other step that we might have taken would have involved a considerable delay in the trial of the cases, which have been pending for some time, we issued a suo motu Rule in each case calling upon the District Magistrate of Mymensingh and the accused opposite‑parties to show cause as to why the aforesaid cases should not be transferred to a Magistrate competent to try the came in the District of Bogra.
5. This course is open to us in view of the provisions of subsection (3) of section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides as follows: "(3) The High Court may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application of a party interested, of on its own initiative."
6. At the hearing of these Rules the lawyer for the State as well as the lawyer for the opposite‑parties submitted that the Rules should be made absolute. We think that this is the only course we should take.
7. In this connection, we should like to quote the observa tion of Garth, C. J., in the case of Queen v. Zuhiruddin and others (1 L R Cal. 219). At page 225 the learned Chief Justice has observed as follows "I desire to add that I personally do not regret that this matter has been thoroughly ventilated and discussed in open Court. It is extremely desirable that the public should fully understand that in this country there is the same law for the Government as for the subject, and that there is not one course of practice for the Crown, and another for the prisoner. Wherever the rights of the subject are concerned, it is quite right that the matter should be dealt with by us in open Court in our judicial capacity and that each application should be made, supported by affidavit or affirmation, in the regular way."
8. We would like to observe in this connection that section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enables also this Court to act on a report made to it by a subordinate Court, and not on a mere representation made by the administrative head of a district or sub‑division. However, even when this Court acts on a report submitted by a Subordinate Court, it should act judicially and such report will not be treated as a mere administrative matter. We, therefore, took the course of issuing the suo motu rules, so that the matter can be heard openly in Court:
9. We would like to observe that, unless any great delay is involved, such matters should normally be brought to the notice of the Court by way of a proper application moved through the Legal Remembrancer. We would like also to observe that, if, on the ground of urgency, the attention of this Court is sought to be drawn directly, the Registrar of the Court should be addressed by the Subordinate Court, and it is not the practice to write a personal letter addressed to the Chief Justice, or for the matter of that, to any individual Judge of this Court.
10. It should be clearly understood that an order passed under the provisions of section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a judicial order, even when the said order is made on a report from a Subordinate Court. It should be decided in a judicial manner after notice to the parties to be affected by the order. In the circumstances stated above, the Rules are made absolute and it is directed that G. R. Cases Nos. 23 (1) of 1960 and 120 (2) of 1960, pending in the Court of the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate of Jamalpur in the District of Mymensingh, be transferred to a Magistrate competent to try the said cases in the District of Bogra‑ which is the proper venue for such trial. SIDDIKY, J.‑I agree. Rule made absolute.