Provision regarding furnishing of statements recorded and documents to accused mandatory.

Cri.M.P. No. 2841 of 1974 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, accused 1 to 4, 7, 9, 10 to 14, 17, 18, 20, for transfer of S.C. No. 67 of 1974 from the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Devakottai to the file of any other court of competent jurisdiction within the District or at Madurai. Cr.M.P. No. 3130 of 1974 has been filed to quash the order of the committal made In P.B.C. No. 3 of 1974 on the file of the Court of Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Karaikudi.

2. I shall first take up Cr.M.P. No. 3130 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 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, Devikottai on 5-2-1974 alleging that the petitioners herein and six others trespassed into his land at Sattanendal Patti Village on 30-1-1974 and unlawfully cut and removed his paddy crops therein and committed offences falling under Sections 147, 148, 447, 379 and 506(2), Criminal Procedure 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 complainant and transferred the case to the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Karaikudi.

4. The learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Karaikudi took the case on file as P.R.C. 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 14-3-1974 after recording the undertaking of the second respondent-complainant to bring the witnesses on that date. The case was again adjourned to 20-3-1974 tor the examination of the prosecution witnesses on the undertaking given by the second respondent-complainant to produce the witnesses. Again from 20-3-1974, the case was adjourned to 1-4-1974 for examination of the prosecution witnesses. The case was then adjourned to 10-4-1974 and on that date when the petitioners and the other accused were present, the Magistrate passed orders stating that the complaint disclosed offences under sections 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 Session 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 10-4-1974, the Code come into force, which was on 1-4-1974. 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 petitioners Sri C. K. Venkatanarasimahan that the learned Magistrate ought to have examined the witnesses and furnished copies of the statement and other documents on which the second-respondent-complainant relied before the order of committal was passed under Section 209 Cr.P.C., and that the Magistrate had erred in not following the mandatory provisions of Sections 202 and 208, Cri.P.C. 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 with complaints to Magistrate.

8. Under S. 200 of the Code, a the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offenc