Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
H.N.Kapoor, J.
Visheshwar Pathak
Versus
State
Decided On : 18 August 1975
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - Section 484(2) - Saving Clause - Trial of Cases Pending Before Sub-Divisional Magistrate - Powers of Sub-Divisional Magistrate to Commit Cases to Court of Session - Trial in Jail - Consent of Accused - Section 9(6), Cr. P. C.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, who were part of the P.A.C. force, were involved in a revolt and were charged with various offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other Acts. Three first information reports were filed against them, and they were committed to the court of session by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The petitioners challenged the commitment order and the subsequent sessions trials, arguing that the proceedings were illegal and that the trial in jail was not proper.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the three first information reports were valid and that the investigating officer could submit a separate charge-sheet against four other persons who were not included in the initial charge-sheet. The court also held that the commitment of the petitioners by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was legal as his powers as a First Class Magistrate were saved under Section 484(2)(b) of the Cr. P. C. However, the court directed that the trial should now take place in open court as the accused persons had not given their consent to the trial being conducted in jail.
Issues: 1. Whether the three first information reports were valid and could be taken into account. 2. Whether the investigating officer could submit a separate charge-sheet against four other persons who were not included in the initial charge-sheet. 3. Whether the commitment of the petitioners by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was legal. 4. Whether the trial in jail was proper.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the three first information reports were valid and could be taken into account as they were lodged independently of each other and disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioners. 2. The court held that the investigating officer could submit a separate charge-sheet against four other persons who were not included in the initial charge-sheet as their complicity was revealed during the investigation. 3. The court held that the commitment of the petitioners by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was legal as his powers as a First Class Magistrate were saved under Section 484(2)(b) of the Cr. P. C. 4. The court held that the trial in jail was not proper as the accused persons had not given their consent, and directed that the trial should now take place in open court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions but directed that the trial should now take place in open court.
( 1 ) PETITION No. 2158 of 1975 has been filed by 45 persons, who originally belonged to the P. A. C, Force for quashing the criminal proceedings started on the basis of three first information reports in crimes Nos. 169, 170 and 171 of 1973 against them and subsequent commitment orders and pending Sessions trials Nos. A-244 and A-422 of 1974. Cr, Misc. No. 2602 of 1975 was. in fact, an application for bail in the main Cr. Misc. No. 2158 of 1975. In Cr. Misc. No. 2602 of 1975, 27 persons were allowed to be released on parole for short term. This period was extended from time to time and according to the last order passed by this Court the period of parole was extended for one randomly on 21-7-1975. Now there is no question of granting bail to these persons in these proceedings as the main petition itself is being disposed of.
( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that there was a revolt by the P. A. C. personnel in Gorakhpur in which arms and ammunition were taken away by the. police personnel and used. Sri Mohan Lai Kapoor, Commandant of the XXVI Battalion P. A. C. lodged the first information report on 15-5-1973 at 6-10 p. m. to 1he effect that the entire Battalion has revolted during the period 22-5-1973 at 2-45 p. m. to 24 5-1973. Thirty-nine persons were sipecincally mentioned as 1hey were the leaders. This report was lodged at P. S. Gulriha Bazar district Gorakhpur It was under Sections 147/148/149/342/120-B/504/ 332/352/307/395/384/427, I. P. C. 6/7 P. A. C. Act. 25/27 Arms Act and 36/43 and 37/119 D. I R. Serious allegations were made that they had1 resorted to firing and they had also aimed guns towards him. They looted arms and ammunition, refused to obey orders issued by the superior officers asking them to retire etc. etc. On the basis of this report crime No. 169 was registered. On the same date and at the same time another report was lodged by Sri Brij Mohan Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police which was also to the same effect. He being a new man posted there, did not know the names of all the persons. He, therefore, named only eight persons. Many of them were common. In this report, it was stated that Sri Brij Mohan Sharma was even illegally detained by these. persons. On the basis of this report, crime No. 170 was registered. A third report was also lodged on 25-51973 at 6-30 p. m. by Sri Jairam Shukla which made general allegations against the P. A. C. force posted at Bichhiya and it was seated that he was injured as a result of the firing resorted to by the force. This first information report was taken under Section 307, I. P. C. and on the basis of this report crime No. 171 was registered. Police then investigated the case and a charge-sheet was submitted against 41 persons. In that case, commitment proceedings were started in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Gorakhpur, AH the 41 petitioners serial- Nos. 1 to 41 were committed by Sri Jagannath Singh, Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar at Gorakhpur to the court of Session on 9-4-1974 and Sessions trial No. A-244 of 1974 started on the basis of this commitment order. Subsequently another charge-sheet was submitted by the police against four of the petitioners. That case was committed by the Judicial Magistrate on 19-9-1974, and on the basis of this commitment order, sessions trial No. A-422 of 1974 was started. Both these sessions trials were consolidated. On the request of the Government, this Court specially deputed a Senior Addl. Sessions Judge to try these cases. Both the Sessions trials were accordingly tried by Sri R. P. Pendey, who framed charges against all the 45 persons, who are. petitioners, on 16-11-1974. The Government desired that the trial should take place in jail and as such the trial took place in jail and as many as 20 witnesses had been examined in jail.
( 3 ) THIS petition was then filed challenging the very commitment order and the proceedings in sessions trials were stayed.
( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the pe
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
