mAGISTRATE AND JUDGE WHO REFUSED TO OBEY THE LAW HAVE RIGHT TO CONVICT AN ACCUSED?

kindly clear the facts. Which provisions were not  followed. What kind of prejudice is caused. All these things are relevant.

Assumi your question is not clear. So please clarify us by modifying your question, Mr Palnit kar correct.

Assumi I strongly feel that you are accademical because your questions reflect that depth. Now you are asking about the mral right of a judicial officer. But what prejudice cause to the defendent is the issue relevent here. Please enlighten us

Consider this. A Magistrate takes cognizance of the case and remand etc, and if not competent to try the case the case is committed to the Competent Coourt after performing his duty and function. But f the Magistrate refused to take cognizance or refused to entertain any application unless the case is endorsed to him by the Session Judge or Additional judge is it legal? Does the Code says that the magistrate can take up the case only when it is endorsed to him by the Appellate Court? Is there any provisions in the Code which speaks about endorsement of case to Magistrate by the Appellate Court?

Hypothetical question.

I am sorry but the facts are not clear to me. What kind of application is it? Cognizance is to be taken of the complaints. Do you mean to say it is a complaint?

Police registered a case, Magistrate is mancle by the Session judge not to make a remand, and remand is to be made by the Session judge. Bail petition is filed before the Competent Magistrate but magistrate refused to entertain the bail petition unless the same is endorsed by the Session judge. Suit is filed before the Competent Junior Civil judge, but refused to hear the suit unless the suit is endorsed by the District Judge.Some how this routine of endorsement by the Higher Court to the lower Courts have become a traditional practise.It means the lower Courts are virually left at the mercy of the District Higher Court.