Appreciation of evidence by the Committing Court.

The revision petitioner lodged a complaint before the Second Class Magistrate, Trichur, against the respondent, the Head Constable of Valappad Police Station alleging offences under sections 323, 324, 218 and 220, Indian Penal Code. The allegations were that on 17th February, 1960, the respondent arrested the complainant in connection with a case filed against him by one Velayi and one Soman, took him to the Police Station and beat him up. Some arrack was thrown on him and a false case under the Prohibition Act was charged against him. It is further alleged that to explain the injuries caused to the complainant as a result of the manhandling, the Head Constable forced him to sign a false complaint against Velayi and Soman charging them of having caused hurt to him.

The case was enquired into by the Second Class Magistrate, Triclrur who after examining a number of witnesses on both sides, framed charges against the Head Constable under sections 323 and 218, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate then examined the Munsif-Magistrate, Chowghat, before whom the complainant had been taken by the Police in connection with the remand application. The testimony of this witness appears to have convinced the learned Magistrate that there was no case for committal to the Sessions Court and thereupon the charges framed were cancelled and the accused discharged. Aggrieved by this order the complainant took the matter up in Revision before the District Magistrate, Trichur who refused to interfere with the lower Court’s order

The main point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate cancelled the charge without sufficient jurisdiction and assessed the evidence before him as if he were trying the case and not with the view of ascertaining whether a prima facie case has been made out to commit the accused to stand his trial before the Sessions Court and as such he exceeded his jurisdiction. I must say that I am inclined to agree with this argument.

As already noted, the learned Magistrate had actually framed charges against the respondent before throwing the case out. Section 210, Criminal Procedure Code under which the charges were framed reads:

“210. (1) When, upon such evidence being taken and such examination (if any) being made the Magistrate is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for committing the accused for trial he shall frame a charge under his hand, declaring with what offence the accused is charged.”

It means that the charge is to be framed only when the Magistrate has satisfied himself that there are sufficient grounds to commit the accused for trial. Here the learned Magistrate examined ten witnesses for the prosecution and an equal number for the defence and after presumably being “satisfied” that it was a fit case for committal framed the charge against the accused. Ordinarily framing of the charge would be tantamount to passing an order of committal for little remains to be done after framing the charge except to read and explain the charge to the accused and to require him to give the list of witnesses he wishes to examine at his trial. However, a further discretion is given to the Magistrate by section 212 of the Code to examine any of the witnesses from the list submitted by the accused and by section 213 (2), to cancel the charges already framed and discharge the accused. All the same, it stands to reason that if the framing of the charge is something done only after the Magistrate is satisfied that the accused should be committed to trial then a later decision to retrace the step already taken and to cancel the charge will be justified only by some new item of evidence of fundamental importance revealed in the testimony of the witness or witnesses examined after the framing of the charge. Such is not the case here. The charge was framed by the learned Magistrate after examining twenty witnesses and taking into consideration some twenty-five items of documentary evidence.