CHINNA REDDY Vs. VIDYASAGAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri B. Subhashan Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that when the petitioners accused were granted anticipatory bail, the learned Magistrate cannot take them into custody at the time of committing them for trial to the Sessions Court.

(2.) The facts leading to this petition may be mentioned as follows;- The first respondent gave a report to the Station House Officer, Rural Police Station, Nirmal making certain allegations against the petitioners. The sub-Inspector registered a case as Crime No. 50/1981 under Sections 447, 324 and 326 IPC. against the petitioners. The S.O. issued F.I.R. and took up investigation. The petitioners apprehending that they would be arrested filed Crl. M.P. Nos. 586/81 and 623/81 in the court of the Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions Judge granted anicipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation the S 1. referred the case as ore of civil nature. Aggrieved with the refer nctice sent by the Investigating Officer to the first respondent, he (the first respondent) filed a private complaint in the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nirmal alleging that the petitioners committed offences punishable under Sections 148, 447, 324, 326 and 307 IPC. The learned Magistrate registered it as PRC. No. 4 of 1981 and recorded the sworn statement of the complaint and also other witnesses that were examined by the complaint and took the complaint under Sections 148, 447, 324, 326 and 307 IPC. and issued summons for the appearance of the accused. The accused in their turn filed Crl. M. P. No. 1421/1982 in this court for quashing the proceedings PRC. No. 4 of 1981. This court after hearing both the sides dismissed the petition on 3-7-1982.

(3.) The complainant examined all the material witnesses and they were also cross-examined. Arguments were also heard. The learned Magistrate, therefore, posted the matter for committal. The accused filed a petition before the Sessions Judge, Crl.M.P. No. 365 of 1982 seeking direction from the Sessions Judge to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nirmal, to the effect that the accused should not be taken into custody as per the provisions of Sec. 209 (b) Cr.P.C. while committing the accussed to the court of Session for trial.