RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is directed against the order dated 16.6.1983 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No. 87 of 1983, where under the learned judge transferred the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal, on the reasoning that the offences with which the accused therein had been charged are triable by him and not by the Court of Session under section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Out of an incident, which occurred on 15.11.1982, at 21.45 hours, two cross reports lodged in police-station Mangalwara, Bhopal, leading to filing of two separate cases. In the report lodged by the present applicant No.1, Rajendra Singh, offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 452 and 323 of the Penal Code was registered against Harbhajan Singh, crime under section 307/34 of the Penal Code was registered against the applicants. Both the parties to the aforesaid incident were chargesheeted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhopal, who committed both these cases to the Court of Session, Bhopal, for trial in the interest of justice, though the offences against Harbhajan and two others were not exclusively triable by the Court of Session. By the impugned order, under challenge in this revision, the learned Second AddI. Sessions Judge transferred the case back for disposal in accordance with the provisions of law.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicants contended that under the provisions of section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate had committed the case for trial by the Court of Session in view of the fact that a cross-case arising out of the same incident and exclusively triable by the Court of Session was committed by him. It was pointed out that the order of the Magistrate in committing this case, though not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, was legal and its transfer by the learned Second AddI. Sessions Judge for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate ignores the fact that the cases arose out of the same incident, and therefore, under the circumstances, it was expedient in the interest of justice to have tried, both the cases together. It was argued that the Court below had jurisdiction to try the offences, though those were not exclusively triable by the Court of Session. It was further contended that once the learned Magistrate was satisfied that the said case ought to be tried by the Court of Session, the same could not have been transferred back for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.