Criminal Code of Conduct (CRPC) Criminal Code of Conduct (V9 of 1898 / Section 526 (8)): The Chief Witness Magistrate examines the transfer questions arising at the end of the examination. The magistrate is not obliged to take action. Mediate promptly in the witness investigation process, whether this means immediately \ r W n where a transfer question arises during the examination or in the examination of a witness' testimony. And the magistrate decided, after cross-examination, for reasons to postpone the proceedings; No evidence was disclosed that was not subject to action during the investigation of a witness. \ R \ n
P. L. D. 1949 Baluchistan 12
Before Bacon, J. C.
WAHDAT‑Accused‑‑Petitioner
Versus
CROWN ‑---Complainant‑Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 2:i of 1948, decided on 16th December 1948 against order of District Magistrate, Quetta-Pishin, dated the 9th September 1948, refusing to transfer the case under section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898'. S. 526 (8)‑Ques tion of transfer arising on conclusion of examination‑in‑chief of witness‑Magistrate deciding to adjourn case after cross‑examina tion‑Discloses no mala fides‑Magistrate not bound to stay proceed ings in process of examining witness‑" Immediately " whether means forthwith
Where the question for transfer arises in the course of examination or on conclusion of examination‑in‑chief of a prosecution witness and the Magistrate decided for reasons stated to adjourn proceedings after cross -examination, the action did not disclose any male fides on the part of the Magistrate who was not bound to stay proceedings while in the process of examining a witness.
Bacon J. C.‑In this case, the accused filed application for the transfer of his case simultaneously in the High Court and Court of the District Magistrate and the decision in this Court was held over until the result of the proceedings in the District Magistrate's court.
The District Magistrate rejected the accused's application on 9th September 1948, whereupon the accused filed an application for revision of the District Magistrate's order in the High Court. There are, there fore, two petitions before this Court and the general effect of the decision .on each will be exactly the same. I, therefore, propose to deal with them both in this order.
The records have been perused and the petitioner's counsel has been heard at length. The petitioner's counsel takes his stand on the provisions of section 526 (8) Criminal Procedure Code, which, he argues, are mandatory and left no alternative to the trial Magistrate but to stay proceedings immediately on learning that the accused intended to apply to the High Court for a transfer. In the main the arguments of counsel are correct in law and the provisions of section 526 (8) of the Criminal Procedure Code are obligatory. However, the point for decision is whether the trial Court erred in not adjourning forthwith when the accused disclosed his 'intention of applying for a transfer.
The question for transfer arose in the course of the examination of P. W. 2 Mussammat Ashraf Begum, wife of the accused. She had in fact concluded her examination‑in‑chief. The trial Magistrate, how ever, for reasons stated, decided to adjourn on conclusion of the cross- examination of this witness. I cannot see that this action of the trial Magistrate discloses any mala fide intention as is contended by the accused. In my opinion it could never be the intention of the legislature that a Magistrate is bound 'to stay proceedings while in the process of examining a witness.
The petitioner's counsel further argues that the attitude of the trial Magistrate in canceling the bail bond of the accused, created‑a feeling in the accused's mind that he would not get a fair trial. This argument is irrelevant for purposes of this petition and I also consider that the trial Magistrate acted correctly in handing over Mussammat Ashraf Begum to safe custody, fearing, as he .did, some danger to be at the hands of the accused.
After considering all aspects of this case, I am of opinion that no circumstances exist that suppose the accused would not receive a fair trial nor do I consider that the trial Magistrate hag acted in any way in a mala fide manner and I accordingly reject the application made to this Court under section 526 Criminal Procedure Code. This order also disposes of the revision petition filed by the accused against the District Magistrate's order, dated 9th September 1848, which stands rejected.
A. H. Revision rejected.
Related judgments — Judicial Commissioner Court Balochistan, 1949
