THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under S. 561-A to modify an earlier order made by me in Crl. M. P. 166/60 and to direct the First Class magistrate, Pattambi to proceed with the trial of the two cases C. C. Nos. 21 and 26 of 1960 on his file.

(2.) S. 626 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly empowers the High Court to order that an accused person be committed for trial to itself or to the court of session if such an order is expedient for the ends of justice. This jurisdiction covers both classes of cases. That is cases exclusively triable by a court of session and also cases not exclusively triable by such a court. So for the ends of justice a case of the latter description also may be ordered by the High Court to be committed to the court of session for trial. In a case and counter where the High Court feels that in the interests of justice the two cases should be heard by one and the same judge, it can order accordingly.

(3.) BUT I am told that the learned Magistrate has only asked the petitioners to appear before the Sessions Court without actually committing the case for trial to the court of sessio n. S. 193 (1) Crl. P. C. says: "except as otherwise expressly provided by this cede or by any other law for the time being in force, no court of session shall take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the accused has been committed to it by a Magistrate duly empowered in that behalf. There is no doubt that for a trial to proceed in the sessions Court the accused must be committed to the sessions. S. 347 Crl. P. C. empowers the Magistrate to commit any case even though they may be cases not exclusively triable by the court of session if the magistrate thinks that the case is one which ought to be tried by the court of session.