STATE Vs. CHAND KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Adilabad, recommending that the order of the First Class Magistrate, Nirmal, committing the accused Chand Khan for trial before the Sessions Judge, Adilabad be quashed.

(2.) CHAND Khan, the accused was charged for having beaten his wife very severely inflicting thereby injuries on the vital organs which resulted in her death the very next day. He was challaned under Section 304, I. P. C. by the Police before the Magistrate, Nirmal. The learned Magistrate after preliminary inquiry came to the conclusion that the accused has committed an offence falling under Section 304, I. P. C. for which he ought to be tried by the Court of Session and accordingly made a commitment order. On 13-6-1955, when the case came up for trial before the Sessions Judge, the learned Judge entertained a doubt whether the commitment could be in border as this case was triable by the Additional District Magistrate, Adilabad. who was invested with powers under Section 30, Criminal P. C. After hearing the parties, he held, the view that though the police had filed challan before the Magistrate, Nirmal, the oniv course open to him was to act under Section 346, Criminal P. C. and make over the case to the Additional District Magistrate, Adilabad, rather than start committal proceedings. The order of commitment was, therefore, bad in law and should be quashed under Section 215, Criminal P. C.

(3.) WE feel this reference should be rejected. A commitment order made by a competent Magistrate can be quashed only on a point of law. The Magistrate must have contravened some provision of law or there must be some serious legal flaw in commitment sufficient to prejudice the accused. If it is only an error in exercise of discretion vested in the Magistrate, the High Court will seldom interfere in such a case. It is stated in this case that as the offence under Section 304. I. P. C. was triable by the Additional District Magistrate. Adilabad by virtue of the special powers conferred on him under Section 30. Criminal P. C. and was therefore not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, there was no occasion for the Magistrate, Nirmal, to adopt the procedure under Section 207 Criminal P. C. but Section 346. Criminal P. C. was the only relevant provision which ought to have been followed by him As the Magistrate has disregarded this prcvision, the order of commitment should be quashed.