BHIM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case arising out of FIR No. 139 of 14-8-1990 for offences under Ss. 302, 307, 326, 325, 324, 323, 147, 148 read with S. 149, IPC and Ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, of Police-Station, Sadar, Hansi, there were in all 25 accused. They put in appearance in the Committing Court and the copy of the report u/S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure together with the statements of witnesses etc. were supplied to all of them. It appears that at a subsequent stage, Bhim Singh had allegedly fallen ill and was admitted in Sardi Devi Lohia Charitable Hospital Hansi and Munshi Ram, petitioner No. 2 allegedly developed some kidney trouble and he was shifted to a Hospital at Delhi. However, the case was committed by Shri O. P. Verma, Judicial Magistrate I Class, Hansi on 9-8-1991 though on that day, the two out of a total of 25 accused, the present petitioners, were not present in the aforesaid Court. These two accused have challenged the order of commitment dated 9-8-1991 alleging that since it was passed in their absence, it was illegal.

(2.) On behalf of the State of Haryana, attention has been invited to Lakshmi Brahman v. State, 1976 Cri. LJ 118 (All), wherein it was discussed that a committing Court has to see that the necessary copies mentioned in S. 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were supplied to the accused. The Magistrate is not required to conduct any proceeding for ascertaining or verifying facts. Onkar Singh v. State, 1976 Crl LJ 1774 (All), has also been referred wherein it has been observed that commitment is a kind of mechanical process and the mere fact that the accused were in jail, was held to be a mere irregularity. In Kamlesh Kumar Dixit v. State, 1981 Cri. LJ NOC 92 (All), it was observed that the accused gets full opportunity to meet the case of the prosecution in the Court of Session.

(3.) Here, even during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the accused has admitted that the two petitioners had earlier been appearing in the committing Court and they had received the required documents such as the report under S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the statements of the witnesses of the prosecution etc. Thus, the mere fact that these two petitioners were not physically present in the court at Hansi at the time the commitment order was passed, does not cause any prejudice and it was not a material irregularity. In these circumstances, the present petition moved under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no merit and it is hereby dismissed. The trial Court at Hissar and the committing Court at Hansi both be informed. Petition dismissed.