OM DUTT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Gupta, J. Heard applicants counsel and the learned A. G. A. as well as Sri V. P. Srivastava learned counsel for the complainant.

(2.) BY means of this application in herent powers of this Court are being in voked for quashing the order dated 24-3-99 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Case No. 7/97 State v. Om Dutt and others, arising out of Crime No. 159/96 under Sections 232/324/504/308, I. P. C. P. S. Kagarol, district Agra whereby the ap plication moved on behalf of the ap plicants for not committing the case to the Court of Sessions has been rejected. It appears that on an earlier occasion also the applicants had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 750/97 and the same was disposed of by Hon'ble P. K. Jain, J. by the order dated 22-8-97 and the learned Magistrate was directed to recon sider the matter whether case under Sec tion 308, I. P. C. was made out against the applicants after properly scanning the material on record. In compliance of the said order the learned Magistrate this time by a detailed order came to the conclusion that from the material placed from the prosecution side, an offence under Section 308, I. P. C. isprima facie made out against the applicants.

(3.) A comparative study of Sections 209 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Proce dure leaves no room of doubt that the powers conferred on the Sessions Court under Section 228 are much wider than those of the Magistrate under Section 209, Cr. P. C. The legislature with some intent and purpose has made the use of the word "appears" in Section 209, Cr. PC. ; whereas a totally different language has been used in Section 228, Cr. P. C. It would not be correct to lay down that under Section 209, Cr. P. C. also the Magistrate has same wide powers as are possessed by a Court of Sessions in examining the question whether or not the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.