AKBERALLY TAYABALLI Vs. ALIMAHOMED ABDUL HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MACKLIN, J. 1. This is an application in revision by four persons who have been ordered by the Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad to be committed for trial to that Court on charges under Section 406, 420, 467, 114, 493, 497 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code. The case arose out of a private complaint by the opponent to this application. It was his allegation that accused No.1 wanted to marry the opponent's wife and with that object devised a plot by which the opponent was induced to sign a blank paper upon a representation that it was to be used for an application for some form of service; but that after the signature was made and attested, the accused between them arranged for the document to be filled up in the form of a deed of divorce. The Magistrate before whom the proceedings came up by way of committal went into the evidence, and at the end of his judgment remarked as follows: On the whole the evidence which is led by the complainant in the case to prove the alleged charges against the respective accused has appeared to me a subsequent concoction. It is on the whole found untrustworthy and incredible. It is not at all found such as would justify the committal of any of the accused to the Court of Session at Ahmedabad for taking their trial for any of the charges which are complained of by the complainant against them. On these grounds the learned Magistrate directed that the accused should be discharged. The matter came in revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, who considered the law on the point as laid down in certain cases, and also considered the appreciation of the evidence by the committal Court and came to the conclusion that there was more to be said for the evidence led by the complainant than the learned Magistrate seemed to think. The judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge concludes as follows: In fact there is sufficient material on the record to justify an order of committal against all the four accused. It may be that in the learned Magistrate's opinion the trial against the accused may not end in their conviction. But from the observations of the learned judges in the cases to which I have already referred, it is clear that the learned Magistrate's function was not to see whether a conviction would result or not.

(2.) UPON these grounds the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of discharge and directed that the applicants be committed for trial.

(3.) LATER on he says (p. 22): He has got to satisfy himself that there are sufficient grounds for committing the accused person for trial, and to do that he must consider the evidence, both its nature and credibility. If the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that there is evidence to be weighed, [which means evidence that is worth weighing], he ought to commit the accused for trial and he ought not to discharge the accused merely because he thinks that if he were to try the case himself he would not be prepared to convict the accused on the evidence before him. But if he comes to the conclusion that the evidence for the prosecution is such that no tribunal, whether a Judge or jury, could be expected to convict the accused, then he ought to discharge him.