M GOVINDARAJA PILLAI Vs. THANGAVELU PILLAI DECEASED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision comes before this Court by way of reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of East Thanjavur under S. 395(2) of the Cri.P.C. to this Court for the decision of the following question of law, viz., whether all the witnesses cited in a case triable exclusively by the Court of Session, instituted on a private complaint, should be examined by the committing Court, as contemplated under the proviso to S. 202(2) of the Code and if so, to quash the committal order passed by the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tiruvarur in P.R.C. 8/80 on his file, in which only four witnesses out of 9 cited have been examined.

(2.) THE matter in question no doubt raises a very interesting and important question of law in respect of which there is a cleavage of judicial opinion among the various High Courts. Sections 200 to 203 of Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C., 1973, under the heading "Complaints to Magistrates", deal with the examination of the complainant and the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate while taking cognizance of the cases and also the dismissal of the complaint if there is no sufficient ground for further proceeding. S. 200 casts a mandatory duty on a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint, to examine the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, upon oath and to reduce the substance of such examination in writing and get the same signed by the concerned persons.

(3.) WE are not concerned with S. 201 in this case as that section deals only with the procedure to be followed by a Magistrate, not competent to take cognizance of the case.