EMPEROR Vs. KRISHNAJI LANDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Bijapur recommending that the order passed by the Honorary Magistrate, First Class, Bijapur, committing the accused to the Sessions should be quashed and the Magistrate asked to proceed with the trial and dispose of the case according to law. The two accused were charged with offences punishable under Sections 461, 352 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation was that accused No.1, who is a resident) of Akalkot which is out of British India, attempted to kidnap a minor girl aged thirteen years and seven months from the house of her mother at Bagalkot claiming that she was his wife. The mother's contention appears to have been that the marriage was brought about by deception, that accused No.1 was a leper and that she was not willing to send her daughter to him. The accused went into the house of the minor's mother and in spite of her protest forcibly took the girl away in a motor car presumably with the intention of taking her to accused No.1's house at Akalkot. But a telegram having been sent to the Police at Bijapur, the car of the accused was stopped at Bijapur' and they were arrested. A charge-sheet was sent up against them, and after recording the evidence against them the learned Magistrate framed a charge against both the accused under Sections 451, 352 and 363 read with Section 511, Indian Penal Code, with the idea of completing the trial himself. But it appears that subsequently the learned pleader for the accused made an application that the case should be committed to the Sessions as it involved a complicated question of law. The learned Magistrate accceded to the request, amended the charge and committed the case to the Sessions. All the offences with which the accused are charged are triable by a First Class Magistrate and not exclusively by the Sessions Court. The learned Magistrate does not say that if convicted the accused deserve a sentence beyond his powers. The only ground on which he thought it proper to commit the case to the Sessions was that the accused wanted the case to be committed to the Sessions and that the case involved a complicated question of law. These are not legal grounds on which a case which can be tried by a Magistrate can be committed to the Sessions. As observed in Emperor v. Bhimaji Venkaji (1917) IL. R. 42 Bom. 172 : S. C. 20 Bom. L. R. 89, a Magistrate must not determine the important question as to whether he is to commit the case or to try it himself solely by the wish of the parties or by the mere fact that he would have to decide an important question of law. Sessions Courts are already overburdened with cases and it is not right that they should be further called upon to try cases which might be properly tried by Magistrates. We think, therefore, that this is a fit case in which the commitment should be quashed and the Magistrate directed to proceed with the case and dispose of it according to law. The reference is, therefore, accepted and the rule made absolute. .