RAM PIARE LAL JOGESHWAR MUNSHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and another person were charged under sections 120B/420/468/471, 466/471 and 477A, Indian Penal Code, by a Magistrate on July 4, 1973 and were ordered to be committed to the Court of Session since section 466, Indian Penal Code, was exclusively triable by a Court of Session, Mr. O. P. Singla, Additional Sessions Judge, framed a charge against the petitioner and his co-accused on September 4, 1973 and fixed the case for prosecution evidence from November 5 to November 9, 1973. The accused however, challenged the order of commitment and obtained a stay order- The Additional Sessions Judge could not therefore proceed with the trial. After the Supreme Court dismissed the petition of the accused, January 24 to January 31, 1975 were fixed by the Additional Sessions Judge for evidence. Now the accused moved transfer application and obtained a stay order. The case was transferred to the Court of Mr. O. N. Vohra, Additional Sessions Judge, from which court it was transferred to the court of Mr. T. S. Oberoi, Additional Sessions Judge. On December 15. 1975 Mr. Oberoi amended the charges already framed against the accused by adding a charge under section 120B read with section 420, Indian Penal Code. Now the accused made an application before Mr. Oberoi requesting him to transfer the case to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under section 228(1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that offence under section 466, Indian Penal Code, has been made triable by a court of Magistrate by this Code. The learned Additional Sessions judge dismissed the application by holding that the trial had commenced in the Court of Session before the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 came into force on April 1, 1974. The petitioner has moved this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the transfer of the case to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

(2.) . Section 484 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the repeal and savings section. The relevant part of this section reads thus:

(3.) . The facts of this case discussed above show that the Court of Session had taken cognizance of the case after commitment of the accused and had framed the charge on September 4. 1973 long before the new Code came into force. It had also fixed various dates for evidence. The contention of the petitioner is that since Mr. Oberoi had amended the charges by adding a fresh charge under section 120B read with section 420, Indian Penal Code, it amounted to the trial starting on December 15, 1975 and could not be said to be pending on April 1, 1974 when the new Code came into force.