STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. K BHASKARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has preferred this revision petition challenging the correctness of the order dated 27-11-1978 made by the J.M.F.C., Narasimharajapura in C.C.No.228/78 whereby he has impliedly discharged the accused of the offence under Sec. 436 I.P.C. and ordered to frame charge for the offence under Sec.435 IPC.

(2.) The contention of Mr. T.S. Mohammad Ali, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State is that the learned Magistrate has exceeded the powers vested in him under S.209 Cr. P. C. He argued, instead of committing the case to the Court of Sessions for enquiry and trial, the learned Magistrate has proceeded to make a full dress enquiry in trying to find out whether the offence alleged against the accused is one exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Such powers, he argued vested in the Sessions Judge as provided under Sec. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Magistrate, had no jurisdiction at all to do so, and the order of the Magistrate, therefore, deserved to be set aside. Mr. H.K. Ramachandra, the learned Advocate appearing for the accused, on the other hand, maintained that the Magistrate had powers to find if there was a prima facie case one exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge and for that purpose it was competent for him to go through the statements of the witnesses and the other documents submitted with the charge sheet. In support of his contention he also sought to place reliance on the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Sakthi velu, 1978 Cr. L.J. 1238.

(3.) Before considering these contentioins on their merits, it is necessary here to state the allegations made against the accused in the charge sheet submitted by the Police. In sum and substance the allegations made against the accused are : that on 1-4-77 at about 8 A.M. at Muthinajsoppa Colony in the limits of Narasimharajapura Police Station the accused set fire to the dwelling hut of the complainant with the intention of causing loss and destruction of the property and caused loss worth Rs.300/- and thereby committed the offence under S. 436 I.P.C. Apparently, the charge submitted by the Police was for the offence under Sec. 436 I.P.C., one exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and the allegations made in the report against the accused also disclosed the commission of the offence punishable, under Sec. 436 IPC.