1. This revision is directed against an order of the Judicial Magistrate, Tral, dated 21-5-1976, for quashing the order of commitment made by him in case State Versus Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Shah and ors offences under Section 148/336/326 R. P. C.

2. In the above mentioned case, the accused petitioners were standing trial before the Judicial Magistrate, Tral. During the pendency of the proceedings an application was made by the prosecutor on 18-2-76, praying that the case being a cross case, it should therefore, be committed to the court of Sessions for trial as the counter case has already been committed to the court of Sessions. The commitment was sought on the ground that the facts of the offences in both the cases are inter-linked and, therefore, it would be more convenient and equitable in order to avoid conflicting judgments to commit this case as well to the court of Sessions. This application was resisted by the accused petitioners on several grounds. The learned Magistrate, however, over-ruled the objection of the accused-petitioners and made an order committing the accused to the court of Sessions to stand their trial. Against this order the accused have come up in revision before this court.

Mr. S. T. Hussain appearing for the petitioners has contended that the order made by the trial magistrate is not according to law. No doubt, he could exercise this power under Section 347 Cr. P.C. nevertheless the facts do not warrant the passing of such an order especially when the predecessor of the present magistrate had rejected the application of the prosecutor to commit the accused to the court of sessions. The learned magistrate had no jurisdiction to review his earlier order or review the same on any ground whatsoever. The offences with which the accused are charged in the present case are triable by the magistrate himself. Therefore, also there was no necessity to make an order of commitment.

3. The learned Additional Advocate General has, on the other hand, submitted that the order of the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Under Section 347 Cr. P. C. power is vested in the Magistrate to commit the accused for trial in case he is of the opinion that the case is one which ought to be tried by the court of Sessions. In the instant case as the facts of the two cases are inter-linked and in fact the present case is a counter case, therefore, it is in the fitness of things that both the cases should be heard and tried by the Sessions Judge so that the chance of any conflict of judgment is avoided.

Section 347 Cr. P. C. provides:

"If in any inquiry before a magistrate or in any trial before a magistrate, before signing judgment, it appears to him at any stage of the proceedings that the case is one which ought to be tried by the court of Session or High Court, and if he is empowered to commit for trial he shall commit the accused under the provisions herein before contained."

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the requirement of this Section is that the order of commitment must be made in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVIII Cr. P. C. In other words, the magistrate must follow the procedure as indicated in Section 208 to Sections 213 Cr.P.C. As this was not done by the Magistrate, therefore, the order of commitment is illegal.

5. But this argument does not commend itself to me because what the Magistrate has to do when he decides to make an order of commitment is to inform the accused about this. He has further to see that the provisions of Chapter XVIII are complied with. In other words, he has not to make a fresh beginning of the case. In the instant case, the accused were charged and thereafter the case proceeded upto the stage of recording of the defence evidence. Even the defence evidence was closed and the case was posted for arguments. It was at this stage when the case was concluded that the prosecution moved the court for committing the accused to the court of Sessio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document