STATE Vs. MULK RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by the State of U.P. is directed against the order dated 17.12.1981, passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 483 of 1978 whereby be transferred the case for trial by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to this revision are that seventeen seers of illicit opium which was being carried in a parcel by Grand Trunk Express was intercepted at Jhansi [Railway Station by Police on 3.8.1956 at 00.58 hours. A case was registered and ultimately a charge-sheet was submitted by C.B.C.I.D. of U.P. in 1963 against several accused persons who were involved in the conspiracy in the smuggling of opium from one place to the other. By virtue of Notification No. 1731, VI-760/1963 dated September 3,1964, the State Government created a Court of Special Magistrate, I Class at Lucknow to try this case. The charge-sheet had been submitted under Sections 120B, 468 and 420 I.P.C. as also under Section 9 Opium Act and Sections 13, 14, 15 and 19 of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Accordingly, the Special Magistrate proceeded with the trial of the case. Co-accused v. Ram and Madan Lal pleaded guilty and they were convicted accordingly. Some accused persons died during the pendency of the case in the Court of the learned Special Magistrate and the case against them was accordingly abated. Accused D. M. Raman, Kedar Nath and Mohan Lal turned approvers and their statements on oath were also recorded by the learned Special Magistrate, who after recording his prima facie satisfaction that the accused are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 468 and 420, I.P.C, as also Section 9 Opium Act and Sections 13,14,15 and 18 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, committed all the opposite-parties who were accused before him, to the Court of Sessions for trial, by means of the order dated 15.12.1978. This gave rise to S.T.No 483 of 1978. By means of the impugned order dated 17.12.1981. The II Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, who was seized of the Sessions trial, transferred the case to the Court of C.J.M. Lucknow on the premise that proviso to Section 484 (2) (a), Cr. P.C., was applicable to the case and the commitment made by the learned Special Magistrate had to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of new Code of Criminal Procedure. It is this order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge which is the subject-matter of challenge in this revision.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, on the other hand, contended that if it is taken to be an inquiry by the learned Special Magistrate, then proviso to Section 484 (2) (a), Cr. P.C, (New) would apply and in that view of the matter, the learned Special Magistrate could not commit the case for trial to the Court of Sessions.