RAMASAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under Section 395 (2), Crl. P. C, by the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, for consideration of the point whether the order of committal without examination of an approver is violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 306, sub-sees. (4) and (5) of the Code, and hence illegal, and whether the said order has to be quashed and the case remanded to the committal Court for complying with the provisions of the said section.

(2.) MRS. Sheila Rajendran, appearing for the Public Prosecutor submits that the order of committal is in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 306, sub-sees. (4) and (5), and as such the order of committal should be quashed.

(3.) BEFORE going into the illegality, if any, committed by the learned Magistrate, now I shall discuss the comparative position of law under the old and the new Code with regard to committal proceedings.