BIMAL KUMAR CHANDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Rule, in Criminal Revision No. 531 of 1975 has been issued at the instance of four petitioners, namely, Bimal, Swapan, Shyamal and Nimai to show cause why the order No. 1 dated 8 -5 -75 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore, fifth court in sessions trial No. 3 of May, 1975 and order dated February 10, 1975 by the learned Magistrate, Alipore, in G. R. Case No. 3155 of 1971 should not be set aside.

(2.) APART from the controversy raised in this reviskmal application another revisional application has been filed by Biswanath Mondal alias Bishu and that has given rise to Criminal Revision No. 908 of 1975 against the self -same orders. Additional ground taken in this application is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge acted illegally in appointing a lawyer of his own choice for the petitioner's defence at the State expenses. Both the revisional applications were filed after the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 came into operation.

(3.) THE first information report on the. basis of which investigation started was lodged on August 10, 1971. In other words, investigation commenced and charge -sheet was submitted when the old Act was in force but the commitment procedure was neither adopted nor completed under that Act. After the new Act came into force the learned Magistrate in view of the proviso to Section 484(2) of the new Code committed the petitioners to the court of session without recording evidence and framing charge. The proviso to Section 484(2) of the said Code lays down: Provided that every inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the old Code, which is pending at the commencement of this Code, shall be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Code.