( 1 ) THIS is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Jaunpur with a recommendation that the commitment of Lakshmi Narain Singh alias Raj Bahadur Singh and his father Srinath Singh to the court of session to stand their trial of an offence punishable under Section 302 I. P. C. or 302/109 I. P. C. , respectively, be quashed and the case sent back to the committing court for holding an inquiry in accordance with the provisions of Section 207-A (4) Cr. P. C.

( 2 ) THE case was investigated by the police when on 16-10-1958, at about 1. 30 P. M. , the dead body of one Sita Devi alias Sitawa, aged 20-21 years, was found floating in a culvert near the duty Signal at Mehrawan Railway Station. There is no eyewitness to the murder and the case against the accused persons rests on circumstantial evidence. The committing magistrate committed the case to Session without recording any evidence.

( 3 ) THE only point involved in the reference is whether the commitment of a case to the court of session without recording evidence and on mere perusal of documents referred to in Section 173 cr. P. C. is legal.

( 4 ) ON this question, there is no previous pronouncement of this Court. In State v. Yasin, 1958 All lj 413: (AIR 1958 All 861), the committing Magistrate had after recording the evidence of a few eye-witnesses and not of all, committed the case to session. It was held that the committal order did not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, nor was the prosecution precluded from adducing in the sessions court witnesses other than those examined in the committing court. There is no observation in this case which can suggest that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the committing magistrate must record the evidence of all the material witnesses before deciding whether to send up the case to the court of session or not. However, on consideration of the provisions of Section 207-A, Cr. P. C. , I am of opinion that the same rule can be applied to cases based on circumstantial evidence, and where the magistrate decides not to record any evidence, and to commit the case on perusal of documents referred to in Section 173 Cr. P. C. , after examining the accused and hearing the parties, he cannot be said to have improperly exercised his discretion, except where from the committal order it appears that he did not take pains to himself peruse the documents and the statement of the accused.

( 5 ) WHEN the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended under Act XXVI of 1955, the legislature laid down one procedure for committal proceedings instituted on a police report, and retained the old for proceedings instituted on private complaints, may be by a public servant or authority other than police. The old rules were to be followed in cases arising out of a private complaint, while an proceedings instituted on a police report, the procedure as laid down in Section 207-A cr. P. C. was to be followed. The underlying object of the legislature was to save time of committing magistrates and to enable them to speedily commit cases to the court of Session. It will, therefore, be proper to give that interpretation to Section 207-A which would carry out the intention and object of the legislature. At the same time it shall have to be kept in mind that by the adoption o a speedy procedure, the accused are not handicapped and may not have to unnecessarily face a trial before the Sessions Judge.

( 6 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 207-A Cr. P. C, lays down that on receipt of a report forwarded under Section 173 Cr. P. C. , the magistrate shall, for the purpose of holding an inquiry under this section, fix a date which shall be a date not later than 14 days from the date of the receipt of the report, unless the Magistrate, for reasons to be recorded, fixes any later date. Under Sub-section (2), processes for the attendance of witnesses or for the production of any document or material exhibit are to be issued before such date if applied for by the prose