CHIRAUNJI LAL PACHAURI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application Under Section 482 of the Cr P. C,. the applicant Chiranji Lal Pachaurj prays that the orders dated 14th May, 1976 and 19th June 1976, passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Mathura be quashed and he be directed to deal with the criminal case against the applicant, pending before him, in accordance with law.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this application, briefly stated, are that on 8th February 1972 one Radhey Shyam (opposite party No. (2) lodged a First Information Report at the police station Kotwali, Mathura, on the basis of which a case Under Section 457 I. P. C. was registered against the applicant. While the police was investigating the case, Radhey Shyam on the basis of the same facts, filed a complaint Under Section 457/380 I. P. C. against the applicant on 14th August, 1970, In due course, the police completed investigation and submitted a charge-sheet Under Section 448 I. P. C. against the applicant on 26th August, 1974 after the repeal of the Cr. P. C. 1898, (hereinafter referred to as the old Code, and enactment of Cr. P. C. , 1973, hereinafter referred to as the new Code ). Subsequently, both the complaint and police cases came to be pending before the Munsif Magistrate, Mathura.

(3.) ON 27th January 1976 the applicant moved an application praying that both the complaint and the police cases be merged and after staying proceedings in the complaint case the trial should take place in accordance with the procedure applicable for the trial of the police case as laid down in Section 210 of the new Code. For some reason, the court concerned did not pass any order on the application. The applicant then moved another application on 14th May, 1976 alleging that although the police had submitted a charge sheet, its copy had not been supplied to the applicant. The applicant prayed that both the complaint and the police cases should be dealt with in accordance with Section 210 of the new Code. The Munsif Magistrate rejected this application by his order dated 14th May, 1976. He held that as the investigation in the case was pending when the new Code came into force, the case was as laid down in Section 484 of the new Code, to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions contained in the old Code, and that the provisions contained in Section 210 of the new Code were not attracted. He also opined that under the old Code there is no provision for amalgamating the trial of two cases. However, while rejecting the application, the Munsif Magistrate, directed that the trial of the complaint case was to proceed and that the police case was to be merged with it. On 16th June, 1973 the applicant moved yet another application praying for a direction that the copies of the statements of the prosecution witnesses, recorded by the police during investigation be supplied to him so as to enable him to cross-examine those witnesses. The Munsif Magistrate rejected this application as well bv his order dated 19th June, 1976 holding that in cases which governed by the procedure applicable to the complaint cases it was not necessary to furnish the copies of the statements recorded Under Section 161 Cr. P. C. to the accused.