SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Mad) 3839

High Court of Judicature at Madras
P. DEVADASS, J.
T. Selvakumar
Versus
The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Chennai
Crl.O.P.No. 26752 of 2013 & M.P.No. 1 of 2013
Decided On : 12-11-2013

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:K. Pasupathy, Advocate.
For the Respondent: C. Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that in case and counter-case situations, both cases should be tried by the same judge to ensure a fair trial and avoid conflicting judgments.

Headnote:

Magistrate - Criminal Jurisdiction - Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 427, 342, 147, 148, 324, 302, 149 IPC - The judgment discusses the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to commit a case to the Court of Sessions, the classification of cases, and the power of the Sessions Judge to try different types of cases. It also highlights the need for fair trial in case and counter-case situations and the procedure for trying such cases by the same judge.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves a request for the completion of investigation in a criminal case and the commitment of the case to the Sessions Court for joint trial with another case. The cases involve offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) arising from an incident at a service center, resulting in a murder and an assault case.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, the classification of cases, and the power of the Sessions Judge to try different types of cases. It found that the cases should be tried by the same judge to ensure a fair trial and avoid conflicting judgments.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Magistrate can commit a case to the Court of Sessions, which does not involve a sessions offense, and whether the two cases should be tried jointly to avoid conflicting judgments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Magistrate can commit a case to the Court of Sessions, and in case of case and counter-case situations, both cases should be tried by the same judge to ensure a fair trial and avoid conflicting judgments.

Final Decision: The court directed the Magistrate to commit the calendar case to the Court of Sessions, and the Sessions Judge was instructed to try both cases simultaneously and pronounce judgments on the same day.

Judgment :

1. This petition involves an interesting question as to whether a Magistrate can commit a case to the Court of Sessions, which does not involve a sessions offence.

2. Petitioner Selvakumar, who is A-1 in the Sessions Case in S.C.No.131 of 2013, pending before the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, seeks direction for completion of investigation in Crime No.565 of 2011 by the respondent, namely, the Inspector of Police, P-6,Kodungaiyur Police Station, Chennai, and commit the case to the said Additional Sessions Judge for joint trial along with the said Sessions Case in S.C.No.131 of 2013.

3. At No.182, GNT Road, Errukkencherry, Chennai 118, there is a TVS Service Centre. Petitioner, Parthiban and certain others are employed there. On 13.05.2011, one Lakshmanan left his friend Maruthupandian's Auto in the said Service Centre for carrying out certain repairs.

4. On the same day, at about 5 p.m., Maruthupandian, his friends Lakshmanan and Durariraj came to the service centre and demanded the Auto. In this connection, quarrel arose between them and the staff of the service centre. Maruthupandi sustained injuries. Petitioner also sustained injuries. Lakshmanan took away the injured Maruthupandi to the hospital.

5. Parthiban, a staff of the Service Centre, gave complaint to the respondent police on the incident took place inside the Service Centre. A case in Crime No.565 of 2011 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 427 IPC, has been registered as against Maruthupandi, Durariraj and Lakshmanan.

6. At about 6.45 p.m., at the hospital, Maruthupandian passed away. Lakshmanan gave complaint to the respondent police. A case in Crime No.566 of 2011 for offences under Sections 342, 147, 148, 323, 324, 302 IPC has been registered by the police as against the petitioner, Parthiban and certain others.

7. The Investigation Officer investigated the murder case in Cr.No.566 of 2011 and filed the final report before the Court for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 342 and 302 IPC as against petitioner and 4 of his colleagues. In P.R.C.No.160/2011, the learned Xth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai committed the case to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. The learned Principal Sessions Judge took cognizance in S.C.No.131 of 2013 and made over the case to the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai for trial. The case is pending for trial.

8. At this juncture, Selvakumar, viz., A1 in the said Sessions case approached this Court with the prayer already stated in para 2, supra.

9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in the assault case in Crime No.565 of 2011 also now investigation has been completed and final report for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 352 IPC also has been filed before the learned Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Sessions Case and the said assault case, which is a calendar case are 'case and counter case'. Thus, they have to be tried jointly. In the circumstances, the learned Magistrate has to send the assault case also to the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai and the Sessions Court has got the power to try the calendar case also. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioner also cited SUDHIR AND ORS VS. STATE OF M.P. (2001 (2) SCC 688).

11. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

12. I have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned counsels. Perused the materials on record and the decision cited at the bar. 13. For the purpose of administration of Criminal Justice hierarchy of courts have been constituted. (See: Chapter II, Section 6 Cr.P.C.). On the judicial side, there are Court of Sessions, Chief Judicial Magistrates, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ist class Magistrates, which now includes Judicial II class Magistrates also, Metropolitan Magistrates and Special Magistrates and Special Judges. All the criminal court


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top