The procedure applicable to the trial of cases committed before the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 came into force is the procedure prescribed for the trial of sessions case in Chapter XXIII of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

CHENNAKESAV REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE only question that arises in this petition is whether a case properly committed by a competent Magistrate before the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 came into force, and now pending is to be tried in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the trial of cases before the Courts of Session, by chapter XVIII of the said Code or by Chapter XXIII of the Criminal procedure Code of 1898.

( 2 ) THE material facts giving rise to this petition which are neither complex nor long drawn out are these : The petitioners are the accused in Sessions case No. 18 of 1974 on the file of the court of the First Additional Assistant sessions Judge, Vijayawada. On an enquiry held by the IV City Magistratecum- special Magistrate, Hyderabad, in P. R. C. No. 8 of 1970 the accused were committed to take their trial before the Court of Session. Hyderabad, by an order dated 4-7-1972 for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 466,467 read with 471 I. P. G. The said case was made over to the V Additional assistant Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Later, on a petition filed by the accused in Crl. M. P. 2163 of 1973 the case was transferred to the file of the First additional Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, on the ground of convenience of the assistant parties by an order of this Court dated 7-12-73. On transfer, the First additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, took the case on file, numbered it as Sessions Case No. 18 of 1974 and post the case for trial from 1-7-1974.

( 3 ) THE provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, came into force on 1-4-1974. Under the Second Schedule, of the new Code, all the offences for which the accused in this case are to be tried are traible by a judicial Magistrate of First Class. Therefore, the accused have now filed this petition paying for a direction to the First Additional Assistant Sessions judge, Vijayawada, to follow the procedure prescribed under Chapter xv11i of the New Code and transfer the case for trail to the Chief judicial magistrate, Krishna District under Section 228 of the New Code.

( 4 ) THE accused in this case were commited to take their trial before the court of Session on 4-7-1972. It is not in dispute that the commitment then, was proper and by a competent Magistrate. The procedure applicable, to cases traible by courts of Session was prescribed by Chapter XXIII of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898 ). By Section 484 (I) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974), the Code of Criminal procedure (Act 5 of 1898) was repealed. The saving clause in ths New code reads:"s. 484 (2) Notwithstanding such repeal ,- (a) if, immediately before the date on which this Code comes into force, there is any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending then such appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation shall be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898) as in force immediately before such commencement (hereinafter referred to as the Old Code), as if this Code had not come into force. Provided that every inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Old Code, which is pending at the commencement of this Code, shall be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Code".

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners tried to gather great support from the words "there is any appeal, application trial, inquiry or investigation pending" in the section for his submission that the procedure prescribed, by Chapter XXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, was inapplicable to the trial of this case. He submits that there was no "trial pending" in the case since the trial in a Sessions Case commences only when the charge is read out to the accused and the accused is asked to plead to the charge and not till then. He argues that since the accused in this case had not been asked to plead to a charge framed against them by t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document