The Magistrate's powers to discharge the accused and grant bail in cases exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions are limited, and the Sessions Judge has the authority to set aside such orders.

S.S. Byas, J.-These two petitions under Section 482, CrPC have been filed by the accused against the two orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Merta City each dated 14-9-1988. Since the original orders by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu were passed at different stages in one and the same criminal case, they were heard together and are decided by a single order. By one impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge cancelled the bail under Section 439(2), CrPC granted to the accused by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu. By the other impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge quashed the order of the Magistrate dated 4-10-87 by which the Magistrate refused to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 457 and 376, IPC and instead took cognizance of the offence under Section 448, IPC.

2. For a proper appreciation of the controvercies involved, it would be proper to notice the material facts in brief

3. Smt. Samander Kanwar, the prosecutric appeared at Police Station, Ladnu on 11-9-1987 and presented a written report stating therein that when she was sleeping on the roof of her house in village Gudila in the night between 8th and 9th September, 1987, accused Prahlad Singh at about 11 p.m. stealthily entered her house and over powered her. He thereafter committed rape on her. She could not raise cries as the accused threatened to kill her. After committing the crime, the accused slipped away. She raised cries and many persons collected out-side her house. The Police registered a case under Sections 376 and 457, IPC and proceeded with the investigation. The accused was arrested aroung 8 a.m. on 16-9-1987 and was presented before the Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu on the same day. He remanded him to judicial custody. The accused moved an application for bail before the Magistrate on 17-9-1987. The learned Magistrate after hearing the public proecutor and the Counsel for the accused on 17-9-1987 itself , allowed the application and passed an order to release him on bail on furnishing personal and surety bonds each in the amount of Rs. 5000/-. The prosecutrix approached the Sessions Judge under Section 439(2), CrPC and prayed for cancellation of bail of the accused granted to him by the Magistrate, While the proceedings for cancellation of bail were pending before the learned Sessions Judge, the police submitted a challan against the accused on 12-10-1987. The case was taken up on 14-10-87 by the Magistrate. It was contended before him on behalf of the accused that from the evidence and material collected during investigation by the police, no offence under Sections 376 and 457, IPC could be said to have been made out. The magistrate heard the A.P.P. and the Counsel for the accused. By his impugned order dated 14-10-1987 he allowed the contention raised on behalf of the accused. As a result, he refused to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 376 and 457, IPC and instead took cognizance of the offence under Section 448, IPC The prosecutrix again went in revision before the learned Sessions Judge and challenged the order of the Magistrate.

4. Learned Sessions Judge heard both the matters together and by his orders dated 14-9-1988 cancelled the bail under Section 43 9(2), CrPC granted to the accused by the Magistrate. By another order of the same day, he allowed the revision filed by the pro secutrix and set aside the order of the Magistrate dated 14-10-87, by which the Magistrate had refused to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 457 and 376, IPC and took cognizance of the offence under Section 448, IPC Aggrieved against the aforesaid orders of the Sessions Judge, Merta passed on 14-9-1988, the accused had approached this Court under Section 482, CrPC

5. I haveheard the learned Counsel for the accused Shri P.D. Acharya and A.K. Acharya and the learned Public Prosecutor Smt. Chandralekha. I have also gone through the record carefully.

6. It would be proper first to take the petition rel