SUO MOTU Vs. SOLJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suo motu application basing upon a letter dated 15.5.2012 of the Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha. The brief facts leading to the letter is as follows: In Crime No. 82/2000, Marayoor Police Station, a final report was filed against 12 persons, accusing offence under S. 3 read with S. 25(1) of the Arms Act and S. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and S. 506(h) read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Devikulam, The learned Magistrate took Cognizance and the case was numbered as C.P.25/2009. In response to the process, accused 5 to 10 entered appearance. Despite the coercive steps, accused 1 to 4, 11 and 12 didn't appear. They were reported absconding. Hence the case against accused 1 to 4, 11 and 12 were split up and the case against accused 5 to 10 were committed to the Court of Session, Thoudupuzha under S. 209(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The learned Sessions Judge took cognizance as S.C.29/2011 against all the 12 accused without noticing that only the case against accused 5 to 10 were committed. Noticing that mistake, the learned Sessions Judge addressed a letter to the Registrar, Subordinate Judiciary, on 29.6.2011. On the basis of that letter, Criminal Reference No. 1/2012 was filed. By order dated 22.3.2012, this Court quashed the order of the Sessions Judge taking cognizance against accused 1 to 4,11 and 12. By the same time, the order taking cognizance against accused 5 to 10 were sustained. In the meanwhile, it was noticed that the offence alleged in the final report are triable by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. It appears that the case was committed by the learned Magistrate on concluding that offence under S. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act is exclusively triable by a Court of Session. Later, in the light of the decision reported in Sabu v. State of Kerala,2007 2 KerLT 516 , the learned Magistrate understood that the offences alleged in the final report are triable before him and the order committing the case against accused 5 to 10 was not at all sustainable. The learned Magistrate wrote the Sessions Judge that such a mistake was committed. It is basing upon that letter, the learned Sessions Judge has now addressed the letter dated 15.5.2012 to this Court stating that the order committing the case is bad in law and hence sought for quashing the order of committal and to direct the Sessions Judge to forward the case back to the learned Magistrate to try along with the other accused in C.P. No. 60/2010.

(2.) Having heard the learned Government Pleader, I find that irrespective of the order dated 22.3.2012 in Crl. Reference No. 1/2012, the answer to the letter is in S. 228(1) Cr.P.C., which reads as follows: