KRISHNAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHNAN, the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No. 683 of 1986 and Sheriff and Nazir Hussaain the petitioners in Crl.M.P.No. 789 of 1987 are the accused 5,1 and 3 respectively before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, in C.C.No. 14911 of 1983. They have filed these petitions to call for the records in the above C.C., and to quash the proceedings so far as it relates to them under the following circumstances.

(2.) KRISHNAN is a cameraman in the Government Press, Mint, Madras. Sheriff is the Foreman, Top Secret Section in the same Press. Nazir Hussain is an Under Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The second accused, Natesan is a Machine Minder, Top Secret Section, Government Press, Mint, Madras and the fourth accused Nagabooshanam is an Assistant Inspector in the Madras Corporation Audit, Madras.

(3.) IN support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to Sec.13 of the Act which reads as follows:"(1) No Court (other than that of a Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf by the appropriate Government) which is inferior to that of a District or Presidency Magistrate shall try any offence under this Act.(2) If any person under trial before a Magistrate for an offence under this Act at any time before a charge is framed claims to be tried by the Court of Session, the Magistrate shall, if he does not discharge the accused, commit the case for trial by that Court, notwithstanding that it is not a case exclusively triable by that a Court.(3) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act unless upon Complaint made by order of, or under authority from, the (appropriate Government) or some officer empowered by the (appropriate Government) in this behalf(4) For the purposes of the trial of a person for an offence under this Act, the offence may be deemed to have been committed either at the place in which the same actually was committed or any place in (INdia) in which the offender may be found.(5) IN this section, the appropriate Government means-(a) in relation to any offences under Sec.5 not connected with a prohibited place or with a foreign power, the State Government and(b) in relation to any other offence, the Central Government."Sub-sec. (3) of Sec.13 contemplates a Complaint under the orders of appropriate Government. IN pursuance of Sub-sec. (3) though the State Government has passed a Government Order dated 25.10.1983 and authorised the INspector of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Madras to make a Complaint against the petitioners and others, no Complaint has been filed by the said INspector as provided under the Section. INstead a police case has been registered on the Complaint given by the Controller of Examinations on 12.2.1983, as provided under Sec.173, Cr.P.C, and the case has been registered as Crime No.7 of 1983. The procedure that has to be followed in this case is that of a warrant case. Under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.13 an option is given to the accused to elect a forum either the Court of Session or the Magistrate framing the charge, in case if he does not discharge the accused. IN case the accused elects to be tried by Court of Session, notwithstanding the fact that the case is not a case exclusively triable by a Court of Session, the Magistrate should commit the case for trial before a Court of Session. This is a valuable right given to the accused persons and that right has been taken away by not filing a Complaint in pursuance of the Government Order passed by the Government. INstead, the Magistrate framed charges and examined as many as 51 witnesses and at that time it was felt that the Complaint has been laid contrary to the Government Order and petitions have been filed to discharge the accused persons. As the petitions were dismissed by the trial Court and were confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras before whom revisions have been preferred against the orders passed by the trial Court these petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings.