ARUNACHALAM SWAMI Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE four petitioners before us were put up before the Presidency Magistrate. 9th Court, under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code. The learned Presidency Magistrate after following the procedure laid down in Section 207a, Criminal P. C. came to the conclusion that the accused should be committed for trial and thereupon he passed an order of commitment. Before the order was passed the accused applied to the learned Magistrate that they should be permitted to lead evidence to disprove the allegations made against them by the prosecution. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate on the ground that there was no provision in law for defence evidence. The petitioners have now come before us under Article 227 praying that we should quash the Order of commitment on the ground that the new procedure followed by the learned Magistrate under Section 207a was contrary to the Constitution inasmuch as it offended against Article 14 and also on the ground that on merits the commitment order was bad.

(2.) NOW, the Constitutional aspect of this petition raises a rather interesting question. The amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code which was effected recently by Act 26 of 1955 has made a rather redical change in the procedure to be followed in inquiries into cases triable by the Court of Session, and broadly speaking the amendment is this. Whereas under the Old Code the same procedure had to be followed in these inquiries, whether the accused was put up on a private complaint or as a result of a police report, the amendment makes a distinction in the procedure to be followed in these inquiries according as to whether the accused is put up on a private complaint or as a result of a police report. As we shall presently point out, whereas the procedure to be adopted in proceedings instituted on a police report is intended for the purpose of bringing about an expeditious end to the inquiry so that the accused should be able to stand his trial in the Court of Session as soon as possible in case he is committed, in the case of procedure to be followed in inquiries where the accused is put up as a result of a private complaint the procedure is much more elaborate and what is urged before us is that there is a discrimination as between one accused and another although they may be charged with the same offence and in the procedure that has got to be followed in the case of an accused where proceedings are instituted against him on a police report he is deprived of important rights which arc vouchsafed to the accused in the other case, and what is urged is that the most important right that the accused is deprived of in cases falling under Section 207a where the procedure has to be followed in proceedings instituted on a police report is that he is prevented from calling evidence in his defence, and the other right which is suggested he is deprived of is a right to go to the High Court under Section 215 in order to have the order of commitment quashed.

(3.) NOW, Sub-section (4) of the new Section 207a provides :