URAVAKONDA VIJAYARAJ PAUL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law that arises for consideration in this revision is : Whether under S. 306(4) of the Cri PC the examination of an approver as a witness by the Committing Magistrate is mandatory before he passes the order of Committal ? The question arises under the following circumstances.

(2.) Eight accused in P.R.C. No. 8 of 1981 on the file of the Prll. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad East and North were charge sheeted for offences punishable under Ss. 147, 364, 302 read with Ss. 34 and 149 of the IPC for abduction and murder of one Katham Anjaneyulu on 5/12/1980. The approver Originally the eighth accused Palla Narasimhareddy was tendered pardon and his statement was recorded on 6/11/1982 and the Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session. The same was numbered as S.C. No. 18 of 1983 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District, before whom questioning the order of committal the fifth accused filed a petition seeking to set aside the committal order but the same was dismissed holding that the approver was examined and therefore there was compliance of S. 306(4) of the Cri.P.C. As against that the present revision is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under S. 306(4) of the Cr.P.C. examination of the approver as a witness is mandatory and only after such examination, the Magistrate taking cognisance can commit the case to the Court of Session for trial. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case the approver was not examined as a Witness on 6/11/1982 but only his statement was recorded by the Committal Magistrate and as a matter of fact the case was not even posted to that date and therefore the lower Court has wholly erred in holding that the approver was examined as a witness as required under S. 306(4) of the Cr. P.C.