Amendment suggested under Rule 18 of Criminal Rules of practice.

In this revision an important point of law is involved. There are in all 92 accused persons in P.R.C. No. 1 of 1971 having been charged under sections 302, 120-B, 121-A, 395 etc., Indian Penal Code. During the enquiry the prosecution filed a petition Crl. M.P. No. 187 of 1972 before the learned Special Magistrate, who is enquiring into P.R.C. No. 1 of 1971, with a prayer to split up the case of six of the accused viz., A-82, A-95, A-97, A-102, A-109, and A-118 on the ground that they have caused obstruction to the proceedings of the Court by making noise, raising slogans, singing songs and even causing threats to a witness, followed by intermittent interruption, as a result of Which the proceedings could not be conducted in a peaceful atmosphere and the decorum of the Court could not be maintained and the whole atmosphere was not in keeping with the dignity of the Court. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on two grounds viz., that he had no power to pass such order splitting up the case of the six accused from the rest. The Magistrate also found that most of the allegations of the prosecution have not been established. Aggrieved by the said order, the prosecution has preferred this revision.

2. Sri Jayachandra Reddy, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that although there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to split up the case nevertheless the Magistrate erred in holding that he has no power to split up the case against the accused persons. In support of his contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied on several rulings. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that it is true that no similar provisions as that of section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, are to be found in the Criminal Procedure Code giving inherent powers to the lower Court. A perusal of several authorities would show that the lower Court is clothed with inherent powers to pass orders which are necessary for effective dispensing of justice. In view of the importance of the question of law involved, I consider it necessary that it should be disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court because it will affect a number of cases for all times to come. Hence the case is referred to the Bench. The papers may be placed before My Lord the Chief Justice for necessary orders.

3. In view of the urgency of the case and the fact that most of the accused are in jail for a very long time it is desirable that this revision may be posted before a Bench during the next week.

In pursuance of the above order of the High Court dated 17th August, 1972 this case came on before the Bench. (Kondiah and Sriramulu, JJ.)

The Public Presecutor, for Petitioner.

P. Venkateswarlu, for 2nd Respondent.

The following Judgments were delivered.-

Sriramulu, J.-This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the Public Prcsecutor, with a prayer that the order of the Special Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, dated 29th June, 1972 in Crl. M. P. No. 187 of 1972 in P.R.C. No. 1 of 1971, be revised.

5. 92 persons in all were charge-sheeted before the Special Magistrate in P.R.C. No. 1 of 1971 for various offences alleged to have been committed by them. During the enquiry, the prosecution filed Crl. M.P. No. 187 of 1972 before the Special Magistrate, with a prayer to split up the case of six of the accused persons viz., A-82, A-95, A-97, A-102, A-109 and A-118 on the ground that they have caused obstruction in the proceedings of the Court by making noise, raising slogans, singing songs, and even causing threats to a witness, followed by intermittent interruption, as a result of which the proceedings could not be conducted in a peaceful atmosphere and the decorum of the Court not be maintained and the whole atmosphere was not in keeping with the dignity of the Court. By his order dated 29th June, 1972, the Special Magistrate dismissed the petition, mainly on the ground that he has no power to split up the case of some of the accused persons from the case of the rest of th