PAPPAYAMMAL Vs. ARUMUGHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred against the order of the learned Judical Second Class Magistrate of Dharmapuri dismissing the petition C. M. P. No. 3426/77 filed by the revision petitioner in P. R. C. No. 17 of 1977 praying that the approvers in the aforesaid murder case should be examined only by the Magistrate who took cognizance of the offence and not by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate of Dharmapuri to whom the case had been transferred by the orders of this Court or in the alternative without examining the approvers, the case should be committed to the Sessions Court.

(2.) THE revision petitioner is the widow of the deceased Palaniappan who was murdered on 24-6-1974 at about 10 P. M. A charge sheet was laid before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate No. II, Salem against the respondents for offences under Sections 120-B, 302 read with Section 34, 341 and 201 I. P. C. and under Section 3 (1) read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. Eventually, the case was transferred by the orders of this Court to the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate of Dharmapuri and is pending on his file as P. R. C. 17 of 1977. Three persons have been taken as approvers in the aforesaid case. When the learned Magistrate was about to examine the approvers, the petition CM. P. No. 3426 of 1977 was filed contending that the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate to whom the case has been transferred cannot examine the approvers for it is only the Magistrate who took cognizance of the case. namely, the Judicial Second Class Magistrate No. II, Salem, could examine the approvers. This objection was overruled by the learned Magistrate. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) SECTION 209 of the Cr. P. C. states: When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall. (a) Commit the case to the Court ot Session;