The amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code introducing Section 207A does not violate the accused's right to defense and relief under Article 14 of the Constitution, as the Magistrate has the power to summon and examine defense witnesses under Section 540 and the accused's right to approach the High Court is not affected by the amendment.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Section 207A - Constitutional Validity - Right to Defense and Relief - Right to Approach High Court - Interpretation of Section 162 - Merits of the Case - Order of Commitment.
Fact of the Case:

Four petitioners were committed for trial by the Presidency Magistrate under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code, after following the procedure laid down in Section 207A, Criminal P.C. The petitioners challenged the order of commitment on the grounds that the new procedure violated their constitutional rights under Article 14 and that the commitment order was bad on merits.
Finding of the Court:

1. The amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code introduced Section 207A, which provides a new procedure for inquiries into cases triable by the Court of Session. This procedure distinguishes between cases instituted on a police report and those instituted on a private complaint. 2. In cases instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is limited to taking evidence from prosecution witnesses and has no obligation to hear defense evidence. This was challenged as a violation of the accused's right to defense and relief under Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. The Court held that the distinction in procedure between cases instituted on a police report and those instituted on a private complaint was justified. The inquiry under Section 207A is not a trial, and the Magistrate is not deciding anything that substantially affects the accused. The purpose of the inquiry is to determine whether there is a prima facie case for the committal of the accused. 4. The Court also held that the Magistrate has the power under Section 540 to summon and examine any witness whose evidence is essential to the just decision of the case, even if that witness is called by the defense. Therefore, the accused's right to call defense evidence is not prejudiced by the provisions of Section 207A. 5. The Court further held that the accused's right to approach the High Court is not affected by the amendment to the Code. Although Section 215 limits the High Court's power to quash commitment orders passed under Section 213, this limitation does not apply to orders passed under Section 207A. The accused can still approach the High Court under Section 531A or under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6. The Court rejected the argument that there is an inconsistency between the provisions of Section 207A(6) and Section 162. Section 207A(6) requires the Magistrate to consider all the documents referred to in Section 173, including the statements recorded by the police under Section 161(3). The Court held that this does not violate the policy of the law against using these statements as evidence, as the Magistrate is only considering them for the purpose of deciding whether to discharge the accused or pass an order of committal. 7. On the merits of the case, the Court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the Magistrate's order of commitment. The evidence included the testimony of an eyewitness who saw the accused chasing the deceased with weapons, and the discovery of bloodstained clothing and weapons belonging to the accused.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code introducing Section 207A violates the accused's right to defense and relief under Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the Magistrate has the power to summon and examine defense witnesses under Section 207A. 3. Whether the accused's right to approach the High Court is affected by the amendment to the Code. 4. Whether there is an inconsistency between the provisions of Section 207A(6) and Section 162. 5. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the Magistrate's order of commitment.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The distinction in procedure between cases instituted on a police report and those instituted on a private complaint is justified because the inquiry under Section 207A is not a trial and the Magistrate is not deciding anything that substantially affects the accused. 2. The Magistrate has the power under Section 540 to summon and examine any witness whose evidence is essential to the just decision of the case, even if that witness is called by the defense. 3. The accused's right to approach the High Court is not affected by the amendment to the Code because Section 215, which limits the High Court's power to quash commitment orders passed under Section 213, does not apply to orders passed under Section 207A. 4. There is no inconsistency between the provisions of Section 207A(6) and Section 162 because the Magistrate is only considering the statements recorded by the police under Section 161(3) for the purpose of deciding whether to discharge the accused or pass an order of committal. 5. There is sufficient evidence to support the Magistrate's order of commitment, including the testimony of an eyewitness who saw the accused chasing the deceased with weapons, and the discovery of bloodstained clothing and weapons belonging to the accused.
Final Decision: The petition challenging the order of commitment was dismissed.

Judgment

1. The four petitioners before us were put up before the Presidency Magistrate. 9th Court, under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code. The learned Presidency Magistrate after following the procedure laid down in Section 207A, Criminal P.C. came to the conclusion that the accused should be committed for trial and thereupon he passed an order of commitment. Before the order was passed the accused applied to the learned Magistrate that they should be permitted to lead evidence to disprove the allegations made against them by the prosecution.

This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate on the ground that there was no provision in law for defence evidence. The petitioners have now come before us under Article 227 praying that we should quash the Order of commitment on the ground that the new procedure followed by the learned Magistrate under Section 207A was contrary to the Constitution inasmuch as it offended against Article 14 and also on the ground that on merits the commitment order was bad.

2. Now, the Constitutional aspect of this petition raises a rather interesting question. The amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code which was effected recently by Act 26 of 1955 has made a rather redical change in the procedure to be followed in inquiries into cases triable by the Court of Session, and broadly speaking the amendment is this. Whereas under the Old Code the same procedure had to be followed in these inquiries, whether the accused was put up on a private complaint or as a result of a police report, the amendment makes a distinction in the procedure to be followed in these inquiries according as to whether the accused is put up on a private complaint or as a result of a police report.

As we shall presently point out, whereas the procedure to be adopted in proceedings instituted on a police report is intended for the purpose of bringing about an expeditious end to the inquiry so that the accused should be able to stand his trial in the Court of Session as soon as possible in case he is committed, in the case of procedure to be followed in inquiries where the accused is put up as a result of a private complaint the procedure is much more elaborate and what is urged before us is that there is a discrimination as between one accused and another although they may be charged with the same offence and in the procedure that has got to be followed in the case of an accused where proceedings are instituted against him on a police report he is deprived of important rights which arc vouchsafed to the accused in the other case, and what is urged is that the most important right that the accused is deprived of in cases falling under Section 207A where the procedure has to be followed in proceedings instituted on a police report is that he is prevented from calling evidence in his defence, and the other right which is suggested he is deprived of is a right to go to the High Court under Section 215 in order to have the order of commitment quashed.

3. Now, Sub-section (4) of the new Section 207A provides :

"The Magistrate shall then proceed to take the evidence of such persons, if any, as may be produced by the prosecution as witnesses to the actual commission of the offence alleged; and if the Magistrate is of opinion that it is necessary in the interests of justice to take the evidence of any one or more of the other witnesses for the prosecution, he may take such evidence also."

Then Sub-section (5) gives the accused the liberty to cross-examine the witnesses examined under Sub-section (4) and the right of the prosecutor to re-examine them.

Sub-section (6) provides that after the evidence referred to in Sub-section (4) has been taken and the Magistrate has considered all the documents referred to in Section 173 and has if necessary, examined the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him and given the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being hea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document