Back
1925 Supreme(Oudh) 128
HIGH COURT OF OUDH
Dalal, J.C.
Emperor - Appellant
Versus
Peru - Respondent
Decided On : 07-04-1925
JUDGMENT
Dalal, J C - I made an attempt in my administrative capacity to explain Section 337(2) A to Magistrates but no attention is paid to my letter. That clause runs as follows:
In every case where a person has been examined under Sub-section (2), the Magistrate before whom the proceedings are pending shall if he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of an offence commit him for trial to the Court of Session or High Court, as the case may be.
2. The word 'him' urderlined by me above does not refer to the person who has accepted a tender of pardon but refers to she accused. What the provision of law means is that wherever an approver is examined, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial but must commit the accused persons on trial to the Court of Session. It does not mean that the approver should be committed for trial along with the accused persons. It is the common rule of interpretation that the pronoun refers to the person immediately preceding. Here the person immediately preceding is the accused and not the approver. The matter is further made clear by the provision of Clause (3) which directs the Courts what to do with the approver. The direction is that the approver unless he is already on bail shall be detained in custody until the termination of the trial. There would be no necessity for such a direction if the approver had to be committed to the Court of Session along with the accused persons.
3. It is obvious that Nur Muhammad approver has been committed to the Court of Session under a misapprehension. I quash his commitment and direct that he be detained in custody until the termination of the trial.
