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 under section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The main ground put forward is that the Sub-divisional Magistrate having previously refused to transfer the cases 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 Sub-divisional Magistrate.
We can find nothing in section 523 of Criminal Procedure Code supporting petitioners' contention: and the judgment of a Bench of this Court in Thaman Chetti v. Alagiri Chetti(1) is distinct authority against him. Petitioners rely on the decision of Bhashyam Ayyangar, J., in Raghunatha Pandaram v. King-Emperor(2) which has been followed in a recent unreported case — Narayanaswamy Ayyar v. Kuppuswamy Ayyar(3). So far as appears the decision in Thaman Chetti v. Alagiri Chetti was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge in Raghunatha Pandaram v. King-Emperor: 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 other valid reason is shown for our interference: and we dismiss the petition.
K.R