MARAKULA AGAMMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Raghava Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, seeks for queshing of the order passed by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in CC. No. 2593/74 committing the accused to the court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge for taking his trial.

(2.) The petitioners are A-1 to A-4 in CC. No. 2593/74. According to the prosecution, the petitioners and another who is the 5th accused were alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B. 420, 465,468 and 471 I.P.C; and charges were framed on 11-10-1974 to that effect. In the trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses by 25-10-1976 out of 25 witnesses cited to be examined and all the witnesses were crossexamined. At this stage, the learned Magistrate felt that as the amount involved in the case was Rs. 6, 38, 822-39 and as highest punishment has to be imposed if the Accused were to be convicted and also as the case requires speedy disposal, the case has to be committed to the Sessions Court which is proper court competent to award adequate punishment proportionate to the amounts involved and also dispose of the case speedily. He, there, fore, passed an order under Section 323 Cr.P.C. committing the accused to the Sessions Court. It is this order that is now challenged in this petition.

(3.) Sri Raghavarao contends that the grounds on which the learned Magistrate has committed the accused to the Court of Session are not in confirmity with the provisions of Section 323 Cr.P.C. According to him, lhe learned Magistrate is perfectly aware of the heavy amount involved in the case even when he took cognizance of the case and took it on his file after the charge sheet was filed and it cannot be said that he came to discover this fact only on 25-10-1976 after twelve witnesses were examined. Hence the ground that the case involves heavy stakes cannot be adequate ground for committing the accused to the Sessions Court. He also contends that the ground that he is not competent to give higher sentence if ultimately the accused are to be convicted is also unsustainable. According to him, Section 325 CrP.C., provides to meet this situation. He further contends that under Section 29 Cr.P.C., the Chief Judicial Magistrate may pass any sentence except a sentence of death or of imprisonment for life. He also contends that the other grounds that complicated questions of law are in volved and that the same shall be disposed of speedily by the Sessions Judge are not sufficient grounds for the Magistrate to commi. the case under Section 323 Cr P.C., and hence the order committing the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 323 is vitiated with illegality and it should therefore be quashed.