ORDER A.S. Tripathi, J. -- 1. This public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioners, out of which one of them is Medical Officers' Association through their District General Secretary Dr. Sitaram Singh Raghuvanshi and the other is Shri S.K. Sharma, a practicing advocate of Guna, for quashing the order passed by the District Magistrate, Guna (Annex.P/1) dated 19.11.1996, directing for recording of dying declaration only by the doctors. 2. The petitioners have put forward a case that, passing the order Annex.P/1 by the District Magistrate has resulted in interference in the administration of criminal justice, causing great hardship to litigant public. 3. The petitioners submitted that the direction given by the District Magistrate of Guna for recording the dying declaration only by doctors is contrary to the statutory provisions and established practice. The dying declaration is admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh had already directed by order dated 18.7.1975 that the dying declaration has to be recorded by the Executive Magistrate and not by the Judicial Magistrate vide Annex.P/3. The Medical Officers' Association had made a representation to the District Magistrate to recall the order but nothing was done and this petition was presented. 4. In the return, the respondents submitted that the impugned order Annex.P/1 was not in the nature of a direction for recording of the dying declaration only by the doctors. The spirit was that the doctors could also record dying declaration when most of the Executive Magistrates are otherwise busy or not available. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and persuing the record, we find that the impugned order dated 19.11.96 )Annex.P/1) is contrary to the statutory provisions and in conflict with the order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 18.7.1975 (Annex.P/3). Hon'ble The Chief Justice by the said order had directed that Judicial Magistrates need not record the dying declaration and this work be entrusted to the Executive Magistrates. This was informed by the letter of the Deputy Registrar to the Secretary to Government of Madhya Pradesh and the same was complied with throughout the State. Now, by the impugned order Annex. P/1, the District Magistrate has directed in its last line that henceforth the dying declaration should be recorded only by the doctors and not by the Executive Magistrates. 6. Now, by the impugned order Annex. P/1, the District Magistrate has directed in its last line that henceforth the dying declaration should be recorded only by the doctors and not by the Executive Magistrates. 6. We had examined the admissibility of the dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. The order passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and communicated by the Deputy Registrar by letter dated 18.7.1975 and find that the impugned order Annex.P/1 is in conflict with the order passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and communicated to the Government Annex.P/3. 7. Further, the dying declarations are normally recorded by the Magistrate under the provisions of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Only when the Magistrate is not available, such statements in the nature of dying declaration are recorded by the attending doctor. The recording of dying declaration by the Magistrates has been always advised and directed with a view to make the statement authentic. The Apex Court in the case reported in AIR 1976 SC 2199 had directed that the police should requisition the services of the Magistrate for recording the dying declaration. The authenticity of the recording of dying declaration has been emphasised in the case reported in AIR 1958 SC 22 . 8. The power of District Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure is only for distribution of business among the Magistrates. The impugned order is not within the scope of distribution of business rather it violates the established principle of law as emphasised by the Apex Court from time to time and also as intended by the legislature under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The powers of District Magistrate are defined in Section 17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only for distribution of business. In view of Section 20 of the Cr.P.C., it was not within the power of the District Magistrate to give directions in this respect against the statutory provisions and established law. The purport of order dated 19.11.1996 (Annex.P/1) passed by the District Magistrate is not in the nature of recording of dying declaration by the doctor when the Executive Magistrate is not available but it emphasised that only doctors to record the dying declaration and Executive Magistrates' should be prohibited. This could not be done by the District Magistrate and the same was not within his power. This could not be done by the District Magistrate and the same was not within his power. Now, the purport of the order should have been that when the Executive Magistrate is not available for unavoidable reasons, only then the attending doctors could record a dying declaration. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from this infirmity and could not stand. 9. We, therefore, allow the petition and quash the impugned order dated 19.11.96 (Annex.P/1) passed by the District Magistrate, Guna. No order as to costs.