AMMED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by the petitioners (accused 4 and 9 to 11 in P. R. 8 of 1964) is to quash the order of the Sub Magistrate, Badagara committing the petitioners along with the other accused in the case for trial to the Sessions Court of Calicut. The State Prosecutor opposes the application.

(2.) There is no gainsaying that by comparison with S.209 and 210 Cr. P.C., the language, in sub-s.(7) of S.207A makes a deliberate change. While the language in sub-s.(6) has retained the material part of the language in S.209, Cr. P. C., requiring that the Magistrate shall, if he is of opinion that such evidence and documents disclose no grounds for committing the accused for trial, record his reasons and discharge him, sub-s.7 says when such evidence being taken, such documents being considered, such examination, if any, being made and the prosecution and the accused being given an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate is of opinion that the accused should be committed for trial, he shall frame a charge and commit the accused. It will, therefore, be seen that the language in S.210 which says that the Magistrate is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for committing the accused for trial has not been adhered to in sub-s.(7) of S.207A Cr. P.C. Despite this difference in the language it is no more and no less than the converse of sub-s.(6), and when sub-s.6 says of no grounds for committing, the opinion referred to in sub-s.(7) must be that the evidence and documents disclose grounds for committing the accused. So, there can be no doubt that to enable the Magistrate to frame a charge and make an order of commitment for trial he should be of opinion that the evidence and documents before him disclose grounds for committing the accused for trial.

(3.) Under S.207A Cr. P.C. in any proceeding instituted on a police report the Magistrate is bound to take evidence of only such eye witnesses as are actually produced by the prosecution in court, and if the Magistrate is of opinion that it is necessary in the interests of justice to take evidence of any one or more of the other witnesses produced by the prosecution or others, he may take such evidence also. But if the Magistrate is not of that opinion and if the prosecution has not examined any eye witnesses he has jurisdiction to discharge or commit the accused to the sessions merely on the basis of the documents referred to in S.173.