RAJU ALIAS ROHITASHVA DUBEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 323 of the Cr. P. C. being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India According to the petitioners the provision enables a Magistrate to commit any case to the Court of Sessions tried before it at any time before signing the judgment. By such an action, the petitioners submit that the accused whose trial is complete before the Magistrate would have to face trial denovo before the Court of Sessions, same interferes with an accused's right to speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The power is uncanalised and in contravention of the right to speedy trial and therefore, the provision is liable to be struck down as unconstitutional.

(2.) THE factual matrix giving rise to the present petition discloses that the petitioners are accused for offences under Sections 323, 324, 294, 427 and 506 read with Section 34 I. P. C. for an incident which took place on 26-12-1992. The case was registered at Crime No. 4/93 at Barela Police Station, Jabalpur. On the same date i. e. 26-12-1992 the petitioners also made a complaint before the Cantt. Police Station against the complainants and the case was registered at Crime No. 35/93. The police filed two charge-sheets before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioners the challan was only filed for offence under Section 325/34 I. P. C. and the complaint of dacoity, looting made by the petitioners in Crime No. 35/93 was ignored. Hence, the petitioners filed private complaint registered at Complaint Case No. 579 of 1996 under Sections 395, 397 and 341 I. P. C. against the complainant before the Court.

(3.) IN the case which was filed against the present petitioners, Judicial Magistrate First Class framed charges under Sections 323, 324, 294, 427 and 506-B I. P. C. read with Section 34 I. P. C. The evidence was also recorded by the Magistrate. Ultimately at the stage of defence evidence exercising the power under Section 323 Cr. P. C. the Judicial Magistrate First Class committed the case to the Court of Sessions on the ground that the cross-case in which private complaint was lodged by the petitioners, has been committed to the Court of Sessions.