NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has termed as "unfortunate" that in a variety of circumstances, magistrates across India don't seem to be guided via concrete precedents set via it in exercising caution while applying their judicious mind.
Talking concerning the maxim that justice should not best be finished, however should obviously and without a doubt be noticed to be finished, the highest court docket stated the magistrates are anticipated to apply their independent mind while taking cognisance of a question and one of these view, should be reflected in the order.
A bench of Justices NV Ramana and S Abdul Nazeer termed it as "unfortunate" that a variety of circumstances which might be introduced prior to the highest court docket, reflect another way.
"We may note that the magistrates across India have been guided on a number of occasions by concrete precedents of this Court to exercise utmost caution while applying their judicious mind in this regard. Unfortunately, we may note that number of cases which are brought before us reflect otherwise," it stated.
"It is wrought in our constitutional tradition that we imbibe both substantive fairness as well as procedural fairness under our criminal justice system ... in the making of decisions which affect rights, interests and legitimate expectations, subject only to the clear manifestation of a contrary statutory intention," the bench stated.
The bench put aside the order of Madhya Pradesh high court docket on a land dispute in which it had put aside the order of a magistrate saying that cognisance should not were taken of the criticism in violation of legislation.
After atmosphere aside the order of high court docket, the highest court docket remanded the topic back to the lower court docket for adjudicating the problem afresh.
The case related to a fraud and forgery criticism filed via a man beneath various provisions of IPC and SC/ST Act with a firstclass judicial magistrate at Gwalior in Madhya Pradesh alleging that a piece of land was once falsely mutated and threats had been extended to belittle his caste.
The magistrate on April 21, 2012 pushed aside the criminal criticism at the flooring that there was once no enough proof on document to prove that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the dispute between the events was once of civil nature.
The magistrate's order was once challenged in the Sessions Court which on December 7, 2012, put aside the magisterial order and held that the person belonged to the scheduled caste neighborhood and the facts indicated that the land was once transferred in an illegal way. The sessions court docket had then remanded the topic back to trial court docket for additional inquiry.
When the topic was once remanded back, the magistrate on January 23, 2013, took cognisance and lodged the criticism.
However, the high court docket on July eight, 2014, quashed the order of cognisance passed via the magistrate and the Sessions Court order of remanding back the topic to trial court docket.
After perusing the order, the highest court docket stated "the observations made by the Sessions Court were only a justification for a remand and the same did not amount to taking cognisance. In view of the above, the High Court clearly misconstrued the Sessions Court order and proceeded on an erroneous footing," it stated.
Talking concerning the maxim that justice should not best be finished, however should obviously and without a doubt be noticed to be finished, the highest court docket stated the magistrates are anticipated to apply their independent mind while taking cognisance of a question and one of these view, should be reflected in the order.
A bench of Justices NV Ramana and S Abdul Nazeer termed it as "unfortunate" that a variety of circumstances which might be introduced prior to the highest court docket, reflect another way.
"We may note that the magistrates across India have been guided on a number of occasions by concrete precedents of this Court to exercise utmost caution while applying their judicious mind in this regard. Unfortunately, we may note that number of cases which are brought before us reflect otherwise," it stated.
"It is wrought in our constitutional tradition that we imbibe both substantive fairness as well as procedural fairness under our criminal justice system ... in the making of decisions which affect rights, interests and legitimate expectations, subject only to the clear manifestation of a contrary statutory intention," the bench stated.
The bench put aside the order of Madhya Pradesh high court docket on a land dispute in which it had put aside the order of a magistrate saying that cognisance should not were taken of the criticism in violation of legislation.
After atmosphere aside the order of high court docket, the highest court docket remanded the topic back to the lower court docket for adjudicating the problem afresh.
The case related to a fraud and forgery criticism filed via a man beneath various provisions of IPC and SC/ST Act with a firstclass judicial magistrate at Gwalior in Madhya Pradesh alleging that a piece of land was once falsely mutated and threats had been extended to belittle his caste.
The magistrate on April 21, 2012 pushed aside the criminal criticism at the flooring that there was once no enough proof on document to prove that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the dispute between the events was once of civil nature.
The magistrate's order was once challenged in the Sessions Court which on December 7, 2012, put aside the magisterial order and held that the person belonged to the scheduled caste neighborhood and the facts indicated that the land was once transferred in an illegal way. The sessions court docket had then remanded the topic back to trial court docket for additional inquiry.
When the topic was once remanded back, the magistrate on January 23, 2013, took cognisance and lodged the criticism.
However, the high court docket on July eight, 2014, quashed the order of cognisance passed via the magistrate and the Sessions Court order of remanding back the topic to trial court docket.
After perusing the order, the highest court docket stated "the observations made by the Sessions Court were only a justification for a remand and the same did not amount to taking cognisance. In view of the above, the High Court clearly misconstrued the Sessions Court order and proceeded on an erroneous footing," it stated.
Magistrates should exercise caution in applying judicial minds: SC
![Magistrates should exercise caution in applying judicial minds: SC]()
Reviewed by Kailash
on
February 26, 2018
Rating:
