STATE Vs. RAJKUMAR SATTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision case is registered on a reference made by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Sessions Case No. 54 of 1979 on the file of his Court requesting that the committal of the case made by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, may be quashed.

(2.) The facts leading up to the reference are : The Inspector of Police, Chikkadapalli, Hyderabad, filed a charge-sheet against three accused alleging that they participated in three incidents forming the same transaction and that they are liable for punishment under sections 452 and 392 read with Section 34, I.P.C. in respect of one incident, under section 324 read with Section 34, I.P.C. in respect of another incident and under section 392, I.P.C. in respect of the third incident. It was requested in the charge-sheet that, in the event of conviction, the three accused may be bound over under section 106, Cr.P.C. besides being sentenced appropriately. It was further mentioned in the charge-sheet that the first accused has 12 previous convictions to his credit and the last conviction was in a case filed in the year 1975. The case was filed in the Court of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. On the appearance of the accused and after furnishing the necessary documents to the accused, the learned Magistrate, converted the Calendar Case into a Preliminary Register Case and committed the case to the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, being of the opinion that the crime is grave and that the offence alleged by the prosecution is one punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 14 years under the second part of Section 392, I.P.C. When the matter came up before the Sessions Court, the learned defence Counsel contended that the committal of the Court of Session was invalid and improper. After hearing the arguments on both sides, the learned Sessions Judge has referred the question of the validity of the committal to this Court being of the view that there is a conflict on the question in the decisions of the High Court.

(3.) The Magistrate passed the order of committal in the exercise of the powers conferred on a Magistrate under section 323 Cr.P.C. and relying on a decision of this Court in A. K. Joshi v. State of Andh Pra, 1979 Cri LJ 63.