STATE OF KERALA Vs. MONU D SURENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of law arise for consideration in these revision petitions, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Criminal R.P.No. 399 of 1987 arises from one of the cases known as mark list cases. Investigation proceeded against four accused. Final report was laid on 29-12-1984 only against two of them; they being respondents in the revision petition, eliminating two of the accused. Chief Judicial Magistrate of the district tendered pardon to one of these two accused on 9-3-1984 and the latter accepted pardon. On the next day, namely, 10-3-1984 Chief Judicial Magistrate purported to record sworn statement of the approver. It was subsequently that the Final Report was laid against the two accused before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for various offences all of which are triable by First Class Magistrate. Though the case is not exclusively triable by Sessions Court, Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to Sessions Court under S.306(5)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'). Learned Sessions Judge made over the case to the Assistant Sessions Judge for trial. The legality of the committal order is challenged by the State in this revision petition.

(3.) Criminal R.P.No.182 of 1989. arises in a case relating to alleged murder of one Soman. Investigation proceeded against four accused. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alleppey granted pardon to one of them, Prasannan who accepted the same. Final report was laid by the Investigator before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary and learned Magistrate on 20-2-1988 committed the case to the Sessions Court without examining the approver. The committal order was quashed by this Court in Crl.R.P.327 of 1988 with direction to the Magistrate to abide by the terms of sub-s.(4) and (5) of S.306 of the Code. When the case came up again before the committal Magistrate, approver was present to enable the court to record his evidence. Defence counsel submitted that he has a right to cross examine the approver. But the request was rejected by the court by order dated 24-2-1989. The legality of this order is challenged by the accused in this revision petition.