Order.- The petitioners are accused 1, 3 and 5 in C.C.No. 251 of 1977, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ernakulam. The petition is filed challenging the order of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, transferring Sessions Case No. 70 of 1975 of that Court under section 228(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for trial by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Ernakulam.

2. The proceedings had a very chequered carier. The complainant is the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi. The complaint was filed in 1968 before the District Magistrate, Ernakulam, as he then was alleging that the 5 accused in the case committed offences punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and it was registered as Preliminary Enquiry No. 3 of 1968. The case was being adjourned from time to time on the ground that certain records necessary for the trial of the case were produced in an appeal pending before the High Court, Madras. After a number of adjournments, the case was posted for evidence, though the documents had not been received from the Madras High Court. On 12th June, 1972 the Court discharged the accused on the ground that the complainant was absent and no witnesses were produced. The complainant took the matter in revision-C.R.P.No. 33 of 1972-before the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition and directed the District Magistrate to make further enquiry into the complaint and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. This order was passed on 31st December, 1973. The case was registered a Preliminary Enquiry No. 1 of 1974 in the Court of the District Magistrate. By the time the case came up for disposal, the new Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as "new Code’‘) had come into force. The District Magistrate, who is redesignated as Chief Judicial Magistrate under the new Code followed the formalities under section 208 of the new Code and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Ernakulam, under section 209. The Sessions Judge made over the case to the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge for disposal. The Principal Assistant Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused and holding that the offences involved were triable by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, passed the impugned order under section 228 (1) of the Code transferring the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for disposal.

3. The stand taken by the petitioner is that the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain S.C.No. 70 of 1975 as the order of commitment by the Chief Judicial Magistrate purporting to be one under section 209 of the new Code is bad in law. Under the new Code, the offences involved in the case are triable by a First Class Magistrate. Under section 209 of the new Code, the Chief Judicial Magistrate is competent to commit a case to the Court of Session only if it is exclusively triable by that Court. The order of commitment being wrong, the Court of Session should not have taken cognizance of the case. The charge framed by the Assistant Sessions Judge and the order transferring the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, are therefore, liable to be set aside. The petitioners contend that the case being one registered on a private complaint, they have got the right to cross-examine the witnesses both before and after the framing of the charge. This right is lost to them by the order of commitment and the impugned order and, therefore, they are entitled to have the order of commitment set aside.

4. The point involved in the case relates to the scope and interpretation of section 484 (2) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Relevant portions of section 484 reads:

“484. Repeal and savings.-(1) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), is hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal,-

(a) If, immediately before the date on which this Code comes

Click Here to Read the rest of this document