GANGIREDLA MATHAYYA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal revision case filed against the order made by the Additional District Magistrate of Visakhapatam in C. R. P. No. 2 of 1950 which raises an interesting point.

(2.) The facts are: Gangiredla Mathayya and six others were charge-sheeted by the police for offences under Sections 147 and 302 read with Section 149, I. P. C. This case was enquired into in the Court of the Taluk Magistrate of Bimlipatam as preliminary register case No. 3 of 1949. The Magistrate after hearing witnesses came to the conclusion that only offences under Sections 325 and 323, I. P. C. were made out and framed charges and wanted to proceed with the trial. Thereupon the Additional District Magistrate has been moved on the ground that the Taluk Magistrate Bimlipatam had improperly discharged these accused for offences triable exclusively by the Sessions Court and the Additional District Magistrate in what can legitimately be described as an elaborate and considered order has directed the committal.

(3.) The only interesting point that has been taken by Mr. Surysprakasam is that in this case there was no discharge of the accused persons and that in fact charges have been framed that there has been no termination of these proceedings and that, in these circumstances there can be no interference by way of revision by the Additional District Magistrate of Visakhapatnam. In this contention he is fortified by a Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court by Dayal and Bharagava JJ. in -- 'Abdul Waheed v. Rex', 1950 All L J 647. The substance of that decision is that it was not necessary for a Magistrate who decides to try a case himself and does not commit the accused to the Court of Session, to record reasons for his not charging the accused with the offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session; and when the Magistrate decides that the accused be tried by him or any other Magistrate, the accused is not discharged, and, therefore, no question of recording of reasons arises; and that the mere non-framing of a charge cannot amount to an order of discharge so long as the accused is on trial with respect to the offences which are charged against him; that the Magistrate is free to frame a charge which he did not consider necessary to frame, at an earlier stage of the proceedings at a later stage, and that so long as the Magistrate retains the option of framing a charge against the accused, with respect to the allegations made against him it cannot be said that the Magistrate had by his non-framing of the charge discharged the accused of the offence which might have been made out against him on the basis of those allegations and that therefore there can be no interference in revision.