Back
1975 Supreme(Mad) 289
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.
Paranjothi Udayar and others …..Appellant(s)
Versus
State and others …..Respondent(s)
Crl.Mis.P. Nos. 2841 and 3130 of 1974.
Decided On : 25 April 1975
C. K. Venkatanarasimhan, for Petitioners.
Public Prosecutor No. Ivand R. Santhanam, for Respondents.
The new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, applies in toto to committal inquiries pending at the commencement of the Code, and the Magistrate should have followed the procedure provided under the new Code before committing the accused to the Court of Session.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 202, 208, 484 - COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS - PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED - INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS - SCOPE OF SECTION 484 - APPLICATION OF NEW CODE TO PENDING INQUIRIES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused in a private complaint case filed before the District Magistrate, who transferred the case to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate. The Magistrate committed the accused to the Court of Session without examining the witnesses as required under the new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code), which had come into force during the pendency of the case.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Magistrate erred in not following the procedure laid down under the Code for committal proceedings in private complaints. The Court interpreted the provisions of sections 202, 208, and 484 of the Code and held that the new Code applied in toto to the committal inquiry, which was pending at the commencement of the Code, and that the Magistrate should have followed the procedure provided under the new Code before committing the accused to the Court of Session.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate was right in not following the procedure provided under the new Code on the ground that the complaint was filed earlier to the Code coming into force. 2. Whether the Magistrate should have followed the procedure provided under the new Code, which I have discussed fully in the paragraphs supra, before taking further action.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Magistrate was not right in not following the procedure provided under the new Code on the ground that the complaint was filed earlier to the Code coming into force. The Court interpreted the provisions of sections 202, 208, and 484 of the Code and held that the new Code applied in toto to the committal inquiry, which was pending at the commencement of the Code, and that the Magistrate should have followed the procedure provided under the new Code before committing the accused to the Court of Session. 2. The Court held that the Magistrate should have followed the procedure provided under the new Code, which I have discussed fully in the paragraphs supra, before taking further action.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the committal proceedings and allowed the petition to quash the committal order.
2. I shall first take up Cr. M. P. No. 313 of 1974. This petition has been filed by the aforesaid accused to quash the committal proceedings on the main ground that the Judicial Second, Class Magistrate, Karaikudi, has not followed the procedure laid down under (the new Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter called “the Code”) in cases of private complaints and, therefore, the committal was illegal.
3. The facts of the case are these: One Muthana Kone, the second respondent herein, filed a private complaint before the District Magistrate, Devakottai on 5th February, 1974 alleging that the petitioners herein and six others trespassed into his land at Sattanendalpatti village on 30th January, 1974 and unlawfully cut and removed his paddy crops therein and committed offences falling under sections 147, 148, 447, 379 and 506 (2), Indian Penal Code. The learned District Magistrate took the case on file under section 395 read with section 398, Indian Penal Code, after recording the sworn statement of the complaint and transferred the case to the file of the Judicial Second Glass Magistrate, Karaikudi.
4. The learned Judicial Second Glass Magistrate, Karaikudi took the case on file as P. R. G. No. 3 of 1974 and issued summons to the petitioners and the other accused and on the appearance of all the accused, a copy of the complaint was furnished to them and the case was adjourned for the examination of the prosecution witnesses to 14th March, 1974, after recording the undertaking of the second respondent-complainant to bring the witnesses on that date. The case was again adjourned to 20th March, 1974, for the examination of the prosecution witnesses on the undertaking given by the second respondent-complaint to produce the witnesses. Again, from 20th March, 1974, the case was adjourned to 1st April, 1974 for examination of the prosecution witnesses. The case was then adjourned to 10th April, 1974 and on that date when the petitioners and the other accused were present, the Magistrate passed orders stating that the complaint disclosed offences under section 395 and 395 read with 397, Indian Penal Code, which are triable by Court of sessions, and committed them to take their trial in the Court of sessions of Ramanathapuram Division at Madurai, under section 209, Criminal Procedure Code.
5. Though the case was taken on file by both the District Magistrate and the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, before the Code came into force, when the committal order was passed which was on 10th April, 1974 the Code had come into force, which was on 1st April, 1974. This order was presumably made by the learned Magistrate as he understood that the new provisions of the Code had given discretion to him to commit the accused without examining the witnesses even on a private complaint.
6. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri C. K. Venkatanarasimhan that the learned Magistrate ought to have examined the witnesses and furnished copies of the statements and other documents on which the second respondent-complainant relied before the order of committal was passed under section 209, Criminal Procedure Code, and that the Magistrate had erred in not following the mandatory provision of sections 202 and 208, Criminal Procedure Code. It is, therefore, necessary to consider the provisions of the Code in respect of the order of committal relating to private complaints.
7. Chapter XV of the Code, which contains four sections, namely, sections 200 to 203, deals
