Procedural irregularities during the committal of accused to the Sessions Court invalidate the order if accused are deprived of their right to present evidence.

1. The petitioners, who were the original accused Nos. 1 and 2, were charge - sheeted to the Court of the City Magistrate, Ahmedabad. They were accused of offences punishable under S.420-120B of the Indian Penal Code . The case was instituted upon a police report. On 11th January, 1967, it was ascertained that copies of the police - papers, referred to in S.173 of the Criminal Procedure Code were furnished to both the accused and the case was adjourned to 12th January, 1967 for the statement and charge by the learned City Magistrate, Ahmedabad, Mr. H.K. Damani. On account of the sick - note of the Defence Advocate, the case was adjourned to 16th January, 1967 for the above said purpose. On that day, the learned City Magistrate framed the charge, Ex. 2 against the present petitioners for the aforesaid offences. The statements of the accused were recorded and the case was adjourned to 23rd January, 1967 for evidence. On 23rd January, 1967, the petitioner No. 1, Bhikhabhai gave an application No. M / 20 that one Suryakant Ashalal has filed a complaint against this Bhikhabhai wherein allegations have been made regarding the factum of a person having been cheated for an amount of Rs. 92,000/-. A private complaint is filed and the first information report has also been lodged with the police in regard to that very matter and the police case has been filed. One offender cannot be tried on the same facts in the two proceedings referred to above. A Civil Suit has also been filed for the alleged dues in regard to that amount. The said petitioners should, therefore, be acquitted. Another application No. M / 21 was filed by the petitioners on the same day stating that a dispute arising in this Criminal Case and the Civil Case is the same and hence, this Criminal Case should not be proceeded with further, till the Civil Suit is decided. On that very day, the Police Prosecutor filed a report No. M / 22, stating that the amount involved in cheating, was to the tune of Rs. 92,000/-. The charge has already been framed. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the Criminal act, complained of, the learned Magistrate would not be in a position to award adequate punishment. He, therefore, prayed that the case should be committed to the Sessions Court for the trial of the offences in question. The learned Magistrate on 23rd January, 1967 adjourned the case to 30th January, 1967 for evidence. On 30th January, 1967, he heard the advocates and adjourned the case to 31st January, 1967 for orders. On 31st January, he passed the committal order (Ex. 4), which is the impugned order, and ordered that both the accused were committed to the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad to stand trial for the offences punishable under S.420-120B of the Indian Penal Code . He rejected the two applications, filed by the petitioners, referred to above. Another application was filed on behalf of the petitioners to give time to them so that they can file a revision petition in regard to their prayer of staying the matter till the Civil Suit is decided. The application was rejected on the ground that the committal order has already been passed by the learned Magistrate. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order regarding the committal of the accused to the Sessions Court for trial, the petitioners have preferred the present application under S.561A of the Criminal Procedure Code .

2. Shri H.K. Thakore, the learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that it was evident that the learned City Magistrate had proceeded with the case by adopting the procedure prescribed for the trial of a warr