AVERTSON PAUL FERNANDES Vs. RABINDRA A L DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Heard forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges in this petition that portion of the Order dated 16th March, 1995 of the Asst. Sessions Judge (B), South Goa, Margo, remanding back the matter to the learned Judicial Magistrate F. C. , Margo for proceeding further with the case after complying with the provisions of Section 202 (2) of the Cr. P. C.

(3.) THE respondent No. 1 herein had filed a complaint before the J. M. F. C. , Margo under Section 200 of Cr. P. C. alleging that the petitioner has committed an offence under Sections 435, 436 and 447 of I. P. C. Along with the complaint the respondent herein has stated the names of witnesses also to be examined in that case. The learned Magistrate after examining one witness who was present in Court has taken cognizance of the offence. The offences disclosed were those triable by the Sessions Court. The learned Magistrate has thus committed the proceedings to the Asst. Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margo. After committal an objection was raised at the instance of the petitioner that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance of the offence has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 202 of Cr. P. C. The aforesaid Section mandates that if in a private complaint the offence disclosed is of grave nature which been triable by the Sessions Court, all the witnesses cited in the complaint have to be examined. For convenience I quote the relevant proviso to Section 202, Cr. P. C. :-