HAUSABAI TUKARAM WABLE Vs. WAMAN KONDAJI GHOGARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the learned Extra Assistant and Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, arising out of a criminal case which was committed to him by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shrirampur, by his order dated April 2, 1983. The facts giving rise to this reference may be stated briefly as follows: The complainant Hausabai was in possession of a field Gat No. 285 of Mouje Loni Kd. She was at the material time present in the field. .It is alleged that accused Nos. 1 to 13 committed trespass and also indulged in the act of taking away some properties. It was also alleged that the accused caused simple hurts to her, to her grand -children and to her daughter -in -law, who were also present in the field. She alleged that she .has seen the incident. The incident relates to acts which give rise to the offences under Sections 395, 323 and 447 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Alleging that accused Nos, 1 to 13 have committed these acts, the complainant filed a complaint before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shrirampur.

(2.) THIS complaint was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Shrirampur, on January 19, 1982. On the same day, the learned Magistrate examined the complainant and issued process as follows: Issue process u/s 395, 323, 447 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C. against all the accused returnable on February 12, 1982. It appears that some other miscellaneous applications were given for issue of search warrant and other minor reliefs, with which we are not concerned. Suffice it to say, for our purpose that the learned Magistrate issued process on the strength of the sworn statement of the complainant which he recorded' under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate, after issuing the process as ; stated above, committed the said case to the Court of Sessions by his order dated January 21, 1983. When the case reached the Sessions Court, on the strength of the committal order passed by the learned Magistrate, it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 12 of 1983. The learned Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, perused the record and found that the learned Magistrate has entertained the case on a private complaint under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure only on the strength of the statement of the complainant and all other witnesses were not examined. He thought that the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. He, therefore, heard the parties on the nature of the order of commitment passed by the learned Magistrate.