STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MADHUBHARTI CHELABHARTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference has been made by the learned Sessions Judge Banaskantha for quashing an Order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Palanpur committing the accused to stand his trial before the Sessions Court for the offences under sections 369 379 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts giving rise to this reference may be shortly stated as follows.

(2.) The accused is admittedly fifteen years old and is a child within the meaning of the Bombay Children Act 1948 which applies to the Banaskantha District. The accused was charged with having committed offences under sections 369 379 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the judicial Magistrate First Class Palanpur. It appears that while the learned Magistrate was trying the case against the accused under the provisions of the Act an application was submitted by the Police Prosecutor drawing the attention of the Judicial Magistrate to a recent decision of the High Court of Mysore in the case of State of Mysore v. Mallappa (1960) Mysore 71 wherein it has been held that if a child is involved in an offence which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions under the general provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code the Magistrate would have no jurisdiction to try the child for the offence and the Magistrate should commit the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The matter was argued before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate following this decision of the High Court of Mysore passed an order committing the accused for trial before the Sessions Court.

(3.) When the case came up before the learned Sessions Judge Banaskantha he felt that the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction under the Act to proceed with the trial of the accused and that it was not at all necessary for the learned Magistrate to commit the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge thereupon issued notices to the Public Prosecutor as well as to the accused and after the matter was argued before him he passed an Order expressing his view that under section 8 of the Act the learned Magistrate was entitled to try the accused even though the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with which the accused was charged was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and that since the Court of the learned Magistrate was the Court of the lowest grade competent to try the case the learned Magistrate should not have committed the case to the Court of Sessions even though under section 8 the Court of Sessions was also competent to try the accused in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.