BEG
State – Appellant
Versus
Baijnath – Respondent
2. The twenty-two accused committed to the court of session were initially tried by the committing Magistrate who started proceedings in the case against them not as a court of enquiry but as a trial court. He treated the case as a warrant case. Accordingly he framed a charge on 9th January 1951 under S.254. After the proceedings had been gone through up to a certain stage it was pointed out to him that one of the offences for which the accused were being tried was that under S.330 which was exclusively triable by the court of session. Thereupon the court proceeded under S.347, Criminal P.C. but failed to observe the provisions of Ch. XVIII in so far as he omitted to frame a charge under S.210, Criminal P.C.
He, however, proceeded to pass an order of commitment.
3.The result of this irregularity of proceeding in the committing Magistrates court
was that the case reached the court of session without a charge. Under section 210, Criminal P.C.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.