IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 WP(C).No. 14319 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THE SULTHAN BATHERY BAR ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI.M.P.POULOSE, ADVOCATE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, WAYANAD, KALPETTA. 3. THE MUNSIFF, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY G.P. SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 14319 of 2008-R ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner in this writ petition is the Sulthan Bathery Bar Association, represented by its President. The prayer made by the petitioner is indeed strange. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wayanad, as per an order passed under Sec.410 of the Cr.P.C. had directed that 100 prosecutions pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Sulthan Bathery, be withdrawn and made over to the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kalpetta. The learned JFCM, Sulthan Bathery, by Ext.P1 order published in the notice board, conveyed this direction under Sec.410 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the order. 2. The contention is two fold. First of all, it is contended W.P.(c) No. 14319 of 2008-R that there is no JFCM Court at Kalpetta. Secondly, it is contended that the transfer is in effect to the court of the Munsiff, Kalpetta. For both reasons, it is contended that the order passed by the learned CJM under Sec.410 of the Cr.P.C. is liable to be quashed. 3. The application is filed by the Sulthan Bathery Bar Association, represented by its President and if technicality were to prevail, the petitioner cannot be held to have any locus to maintain this writ petition. Be that as it may, I am not proceeding to consider that technicality. I shall consider the question on merits. 4. The Registry was directed to furnish details and it is now made clear that as per the order dated 8/8/07 promulgated by the High Court the Munsiff, Kalpetta, has been conferred with the powers of a JFCM to try cases including the power to conduct summary trials. In the light of that Notification, the Munsiff, Kalpetta has jurisdiction to try criminal cases. The Munsiff, Kalpetta, has been conferred with jurisdiction under Sec.32 of the Cr.P.C. and it is such officer who exercises dual functions as Munsiff and Magistrate now. In these circumstances, the contention that the learned CJM cannot exercise his powers under Sec.410 of the Cr.P.C. to direct transfer of cases to the court of a Munsiff who is conferred with magisterial powers is found to be without any merit or W.P.(c) No. 14319 of 2008-R substance. 5. Secondly, it is contended that Ext.P1 Notification shows that the cases are transferred to the JFCM, Kalpetta. There is no such court, it is contended. 6. There is only one court of the Munsiff at Kalpetta and there is no other Munsiff's Court or Magistrate's Court at that centre. 7. If so, it is evident that the learned JFCM, Sulthan Bathery, in Ext.P1 referred to the JFCM, Kalpetta as the court to which the cases are transferred, the learned JFCM, Sulthan Bathery only referred to the Munsiff, Kalpetta who has been notified to be a JFCM for the purpose of disposal of the criminal cases as per the notification dated 8/8/07. I find no merit in this contention also, in these circumstances. 8. Sec.410 of the Cr.P.C. certainly confers jurisdiction on the learned CJM to withdraw criminal cases from the JFCM, Sulthan Bathery and make them over to the Munsiff, Kalpetta who has by Notification dated 8/8/07 been notified as the court of the JFCM to exercise powers in respect of trials. 9. In short, there is absolutely no merit in this writ petition and the same only deserves to be dismissed. I do so. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(c) No. 14319 of 2008-R