Judicial withdrawal under Criminal Procedure law extends beyond administration, allowing reassignment where reasons and fairness justify transfer.

Section 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and by parity the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, to withdraw a case earlier made over and reassign it on judicial grounds, not merely for administrative redistribution. The requirement of recording reasons under section 412 supports this wider reading. On the stated facts, where two prosecutions arose from the same raid, shared witnesses and evidence, and the connected case had already ended in acquittal with adverse findings on the investigation, withdrawal of the second case was treated as proper and expedient in the interests of justice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had power under section 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to withdraw a case from a subordinate Magistrate and make it over to another Court on a judicial ground, and whether the transfer was justified on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The controversy turned on the scope of section 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the Metropolitan set-up and its relation to the scheme of distribution and control of criminal work under the Code. The Court held that the wording "withdraw" and "recall" in section 410 is not confined to purely administrative matters; the provision empowers the Chief Judicial Magistrate and, by parity, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to take back a case earlier made over by them and to reassign it, including on judicial grounds such as reasonable apprehension of prejudice or embarrassment. The requirement of recording reasons under section 412 supported the view that the power is not merely administrative. On the facts, the two prosecutions arose from a common raid, common information, common panchnama, identical witnesses, and substantially identical evidence, while the trial Magistrate had already recorded an acquittal in the connected case with strictures against the investigation. In those circumstances, the withdrawal of the second case from the 40th Court was found proper and expedient in the interest of justice.

Conclusion: The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had jurisdiction under section 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to withdraw the case, and the order of transfer was valid and justified.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the withdrawal and transfer order failed, and the case was directed to proceed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

Ratio Decidendi: The power of a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under section 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not confined to administrative redistribution of work but extends to judicial withdrawal or recall of a case already made over, provided reasons are recorded and the transfer is justified on the facts.

---