Direction given for committing the case to court of sessions.

The suo mottu criminal revision petition has been taken on file by this Honble Court, on coming to know about the irregularities committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi, while conducting an enquiry in a case in Crime No.701 of 2003 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vedaranyam Police Station. The Inspector of Police, Vedaranyam Police Station, on conclusion of the investigation of the case, filed a final report against these six accused for an offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 214, 307, 307 r/w 114, 307 r/w 149, 450 IPC.

.2. The case of the prosecution is that the husband of the complainant was done to death by the first accused along with his henchmen and a case in S.C.No.3 of 2003 was pending. The case was posted for trial on 21.07.2003. On 15.07.2003 all the accused under the leadership of the first accused, alleged to have visited the residence of the complainant for offering illegal gratification of Rs.6,00,000/-to the complainant and her mother, in consideration of concealing the offence and to help the accused by not deposing against them.

3. A-1 was armed with iron rod and a bag containing cash. A-2 and A-3 was with a bag containing cash and knife, respectively. A-4 to A-6 were the members of the unlawful assembly. When the offer was refused by the complainant, it is the case of the prosecution that on the instructions of A-1, A-4 alleged to have made an attempt at the uncle of the complainant with his knife, which was warded of. However, he sustained cut injury on his right hand. It is alleged that such an attack has been made with a view to commit the murder of the witnesses.

4. 14 witnesses have been examined during the course of the investigation and a final report has been filed on 110. 2004 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 22.02.2005 after deleting the Sections 307 and 450 IPC. Charges were framed by the learned Magistrate on 26.04.2005 and four witnesses were examined on 11.08.2005. Though A-1 to A-5 deferred cross examination of the witnesses, they were cross examined by the counsel for A-6. On the same day, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a petition under Section 323 Cr.P.C stating that on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 an offence under Sections 307 and 450 IPC are made out, which is an offence triable by the Court of Sessions and prayed for committal of the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned Magistrate on 15.09.2005 passed a detailed order, refusing to entertain such a prayer and further, passed severe strictures against the Assistant Public Prosecutor for moving such an application during the course of the trial.

5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor preferred a complaint before the Honble High Court and after receiving the report from the District Judge, Nagapattinam, the present suo mottu revision has been taken on file by this Honble Court. Notice was sent to the complainant and accused.

6. Learned counsel appearing for A-1, A-3 to A-6 submits that they are prepared to take up the trial even if the case is committed to the Court of Sessions. However, A-2, who is a practising Advocate appears in person and submitted that no materials are available on record to commit the case to the Court of Sessions and the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is perfect and is in accordance with law.

7. The learned Government Advocate, submits that materials have been collected during the course of the investigation to substantiate the offence under Sections 307 and 450 IPC. After taking cognizance of the offence, the learned Magistrate would have committed the case to the Court of Sessions, but without doing so, after deleting Sections 307 and 450 IPC has chosen to take up the trial by himself. During trial evidence have been adduced to substantiate the offence under Sections 307 and 450 IPC. Learned Magistrate would have committ