(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh, against order, dated 25th April, 1960, which has been passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, in Crl.R.P. No. 5 of 1960 on his file. The relevant facts of the case are briefly as follows :- The C.I.D. of Police, Gopalapuram, registered a case under section 354, Indian Penal Code, on an allegation that Jagannadham (respondent herein as well as in Crl.R.P. No. 5 of 1960-hereafter referred to for convenience as the accused) outraged the modestry of a girl called Maurean Terry in the night of 2nd May, 1959. The police investigated the case but did not file any final report under section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, to the City Magistrate, Secunderabad, or to any other Magistrate. They did not file a charge-sheet or a ' referred ' charge-sheet, but, it would appear that copies of case-diaries were being sent to the Magistrate.
(2.) On 9th January, 1960, the Second City Magistrate adopted the extraordinary procedure of passing an order that Jagannadham should be put up before the Court for trial for an offence under section 354, Indian Penal Code. It would be seen from the order of the learned Sessions Judge that the City Magistrate adopted the course as a result of his coming to a conclusion (on the basis of case-diaries and other materials place before him in connection with the crime) that the accusation against Jagannadham appeared to be reasonably well-founded. The learned City Magistrate posted the case to i3th January, 1960. On that date, Jagannadham was bound over to appear on the next adjourned date of hearing 18th January, 1960. On the latter date, the police did not file a charge-sheet. On 19th January, 1960, the City Magistrate passed an order as follows :-
(3.) Thereupon, the State filed a petition under sections 435 and 438, Criminal Procedure Code, before the Principal Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, that the case might be reported to the High Court to quash the proceedings in file and to pass other suitable orders. The learned Sessions Judge concluded at the end of para. 5 of his order, as follows :-