Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, J.:- This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Calcutta quashing an order of commitment made by the Magistrate, 1st Class, Sealdah. The appeal raises a question as to the scope and interpretation of Section 207-A, Criminal P. C., 1898.

2. It would appear that on the Doljatra day which fell on March 14, 1968 communal riots broke out in Calcutta in the wake of the Holi festival. At about 2-30 p. m. on that day two boys, Sital Chandra Prodhan and Rabin Karmarkar, were passing along the Kashai Bustee. They strayed into the Narkeldange North Road locality while sprinkling colours. At about 5 or 5-30 p. m. they are alleged to have been surrounded by 50 or 60 men, 10 or 12 out of which assaulted them with fists, iron rods and bricks. Rabin Karmarkar is said to have been dragged along Narkeldange North Road. His dead body was found floating in the Circular Canal on March 20, 1968. Sital Prodhan was carried inside the Kashai Bustee and was robbed of his wrist watch, a ring and some money. Miraculously, he managed to run away and kept himself in hiding for a couple of hours. At about 7-30 p. m. he went to the Manicktola Police Station which sent him to the Emergency Ward of the Calcutta Medical College. His statement, it is said, was recorded at the Hospital by a police officer of the Beliaghata Police Station at about 1-30 a. m. on March 15. Another statement was later recorded on March 17 and it was treated as the First Information Report in the case.

3. The respondents, 10 in all, were arrested on June 5, 1968 for their alleged complicity in the incident of March 14. Three identification parades were held on June 28, June 29 and October 8, 1968. Two of the respondents were identified in the first parade, six in the second and two in the third.

4. During the inquiry before the committing Magistrate under Chap. XVIII of the Code, two witnesses were examined by the prosecution: Sital Chandra Prodhan and Asgar Ali. Observing that as a committing court it was not his function to weigh the evidence on record the learned Magistrate, basing himself primarily on the evidence of the two witnesses, framed a charge against the respondents under Section and Sections 302, 324 and 395 read with Section of the Penal Code and committed them to stand their trial in the Court of Session at Alipore. The order of commitment is dated December 18, 1968.

5. On December 23 an application for bail under Section 498 of the Code was moved in the High Court at Calcutta on behalf of the first respondent, Mohd. Samsuddin alias Buddhu. A Division Bench of the High Court (Amaresh Roy and S. N. Bagchi, JJ.) having heard arguments on the bail application, felt that the order of commitment itself needed a closer examination. The learned Judges therefore called for the record of the case and issued a rule calling upon the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas, to show cause why the order of commitment should not be set aside or why the charges should not be altered or modified. Pending the hearing of the rule the first respondent was released on bail. On January 14, 1969 an application for bail was moved in the High Court on behalf of respondents 2 to 10. The learned Judges passed a similar order on that application.

6. The two rules were disposed of by the same Bench by a common judgment dated April 2, 1969. Differing from the view taken by the committing court, the High Court held that there was no ground for committing the respondents to stand their trial in the Court of Session. Some of the respondents, according to the High Court, might have been tried by the learned Magistrate himself on minor charges but considering the long lapse of time the High Court thought that it was not conducive to justice to direct the Magistrate to try any of the respondents on those charges. The State of West Bengal challenges the correctness of the High Court s judgment quashing the order of commitment.

7. Section 207-A of the Code of