STATE Vs. CHOKKIAH AND KISHOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question thai arises for determination in this case is whether the committal of an accused to the Sessions Court is valid it such committal Is made without the commiting Magistrate examining the approver. The accused in P.R.C. No. 13 of 74 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad were charge-sheeted for offences punishable u/ss. 120-B 121-A, 122, 123, 124-A. 302, 395 and 397 I P.C. There are three Approvers in the case After the accused were produced before him. the learned Magistrate committed the accused to take their trial before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad without examining the approvers, The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge set aside the order of committal and remanded the case to the Magistrate for recording the evidence of the approvers and for disposal of the case according to law thereafter. The State has come up with this petition for quashing the order of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge.

(2.) Sri Obulpathl Chowdary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that in so far as the offences are triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the Metropolitan Magistrate has committed the accused without examining any witnesses and the order of Committal ought not to have been interfered with by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge. He contends that under Sec. 209 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, it is net necessary for the Magistrate to examine any witnesses before committing the accused, He says that the object and intendment of the new Code is to dispense with enquiries by the|Maghtrates in the case of offences exclusively triable by a Court of session snd Section 306 (4)(a) should be deemed to be redundant and inoperative in view of the provision in Sec. 209 (a) and the object of the ntw Code. Sri K. Jagannadha Rao, the learned Counsel appointed by the Court as Amicus-Curie urges that though the examination of witnesses by the Magistrate Is dispensed with for committing he accused persons in cases exclusively triable by a Court of session under the new Code, the examination of an approver, if any in the case by the enquiry Magistrate is mandatory In view of Section 306 (4) of the new Code. He contends that the words of Sec. 306 (4) are clear and unambiguous and that it would not be proper to construe See. 306 (4) as redundant or inoperative by a reference to the object of the framers of the Code. in support of his contention he cited a catena of cases and certain passages from Maxwell and Craies, wherein it was pointed out that where the language of stature is clear and unequivocal it is not given to a court to suppose that the Legislature did not intend what has been actually expressed thereunder and further that, the provisions of a statute should be so read as to harmonise with ore a: other unless it would be Impossible ro effect reconciliation between the previsions.

(3.) Without any reference to the arguments of either, which indeed would be unnecessary it may have to be straight away observed that the petition for quashing the proceedings of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge is palpably unmeritcrious and is an obvious result of over-sight of the specific provisions undert Sub-Sections (4) and (5) of section 306 of the new Code. Sections 306,307 and 308 of the new Code havd been substitutes with slight, changes for Sections 337, 338 and 339 of the old Code. These three Sections deal exhaustively with appjovets Sub-sections (2) (4) and (5) cf Section 306 of the new Code read as follows: