BITTHAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 11-5-1974 of ie Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Mathura fixing a date for providing copies to the accused under Section 208, Cr. P C. and to pass orders under Section 209, Cr. p. C on that very date.

(2.) THE allegations are that the accused persons have been summoned under Section 307/34, I. P. C. on the basis of the complaint filed by Dina opposite party. The prosecution evidence had been recorded during the commitment proceedings under Chapter XVIII of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 but the statement of the accused could not be recorded, nor could they get any opportunity to adduct evidence under Section 208, Cr P C. (old ). The new Cr. P. C. of 1973 came into fore during the pendency and the complainant applied for committing the accused to the Court of Session under Section 209, Cr. P. C The learned Magistarte then passed the impugned order.

(3.) ONE of the grounds taken m this revision is that Section 484 (2) it discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was argued that under Section 209, Cr. P. C. (new) the Magistrate is required to commit those cases only to the Court of Session which in his opinion are triable by the Court of Session and he may still retain some cases which in his opinion may be triable (by Magistrate and ultimately commit them under provisions of the old Cr. P. C. as some cases were triable by Court of Session as well as by Magistrate. This argument is without force because under the new Cr. P. C. all the offences are either triable by the Court of Session or Magistrate. No offence is triable by Court of Session. and by the Magistrate concurrently,