D. SAMIYAPPAN AND OTHERS Vs. VAIDYALINGASAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above two revisions arise out of an order passed by the Sessions Judge of Salem. Though the facts of the case are different in these two revision petitions, the order of the learned Sessions Judge purely rests upon the alleged illegal procedure adopted by the Judical First Class Magistrate No. 2, Salem. According to the learned Sessions Judge, the Judicial First Class Magistrate No. 2, Salem, while discharging the accused in these revision cases, should not have questioned the accused under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) MR . Veluswami, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in both the revision petitions submits that the questioning of the accused while discharging them will not in any way vitiate the proceeding and this can be construed only as superfluous and cannot in any way affect the legality of the order passed by the learned First Class Magistrate No. 2, Salem.

(3.) Thus, it is clear that the amended Code of Criminal Procedure omitted the words which enabled the court to examine the accused as per Section 253(1). This is because of the fact that it is found the mentioning of the questioning under this section is superfluous in view of Section 342 corresponding to Section 313 of the present amended Code of Criminal Procedure Thus, in my view, the examination of the accused by the Magistrate concerned will not in any way vitiate the proceedings, but it may be superfluous. Hence, the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge in both these cases under revision is wrong. Further I find that the learned Sessions Judge while observing that the questioning of the accused by the Magistrate to take the case on file and to frame the charges in this case. There is absolutely no discussions as such, by the learned Sessions Judge regarding the order passed by the Magistrate on merits.