STATE OF KERALA Vs. ABDULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE action of the learned Magistrate in first convicting the accused of offences under S. 380 and 461, I. P. C, trying the case as a warrant case following the procedure prescribed by S. 251-A, Cr l. P. C. since it was instituted on a police report, and then discovering that the accused was an old offender whom he could not adequately punish and therefore committing him to Sessions under S. 348 Crl. P. C. in view of the conviction, S. 403 Crl. P. C. would bar a trial by the Sessions Court - is clearly illegal and I am afraid that both the conviction and the commitment have to be set aside - See Re. K. Sellandi , ILR. 38 Madra s 552. With regard to the commitment, I might observe that by reason of s. 347 (1) Crl. P. C. the magistrate was bound to follow the procedure prescribed by S. 207-A, Crl. P. C. That he has not done, the accused having pleaded guilty to the charge and having been convicted on that plea without any evidence being recorded. THE commitment is therefore illegal - See Chhadmilal Jain & others v. THE State of Uttar Pradesh & another, AIR. 1960 supreme Court 41. I accept this reference by the Sessions Judge, set aside both the conviction and the commitment of the accused, and direct an inquiry into the case against him under S. 207a, Cr l. P. C. THE inquiry will be held by the District Magistrate or by such other magistrate of competent jurisdiction as the District Magistrate may direct.