Magistrates should exercise caution in applying judicious minds, says SC

The Supreme Court has termed as "unfortunate" that in  a number of cases, magistrates across India are not guided by concrete precedents set by it in exercising caution while applying their judicious mind.

Talking about the maxim that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done, the top court said the magistrates are expected to apply their independent mind while taking cognisance of a matter and such a view, should be reflected in the order.

A bench of Justices N V Ramana and S Abdul Nazeer termed it as "unfortunate" that a number of cases which are brought before the top court, reflect otherwise.

"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 said.

"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 said.

The bench set aside the order of Madhya Pradesh High Court on a land dispute by which it had set aside the order of a magistrate saying that cognisance should not have been taken of the complaint in violation of law.

After setting aside the order of high court, the top court remanded the matter back to the lower court for adjudicating the issue afresh.

The case related to a fraud and forgery complaint filed by a man under various provisions of IPC and SC/ST Act with a first class judicial magistrate at Gwalior in Madhya Pradesh alleging that a piece of land was falsely mutated and threats were extended to belittle his caste.

The magistrate on April 21, 2012 dismissed the criminal complaint on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence on record to prove that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the dispute between the parties was of civil nature.