CHHAILLA Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner along with four others was committed to the Court of Session to stand his trial under sections 120 -B, 109, 409, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate, while committing them, did not record the evidence of any witnesses but relied on certain documents and the report of a handwriting expert. The petitioner felt aggrieved and lodged this petition tinder section 561 -A of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the commitment proceedings.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to section 207 -A (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code and submitted that it was incumbent on the part of the Magistrate to record the evidence of the witnesses and then commit the petitioner to the Court of Session if he found a prima facie case against him. A perusal of sub -section (4) of the above section shows in unambiguous terns that the argument of the counsel has no force. This 'sub -section runs asunder:

(3.) It cannot be contended that under section 207 -A the prosecution are bound, under the first part of sub -section (4) of the section, to examine all the witnesses of the actual commission of the offence and that if they fail to do so, the Magistrate is bound, under the second part of the same sub -section, to examine them or at least he ought to examine them in the interest of justice. Such an obligation cannot be read into the language of the sub -section. The first part undoubtedly lays an obligation but it is only an obligation on the Magistrate to examine such witnesses of the actual commission of the offence alleged as the prosecution may produce before him. Primarily and directly, the second part lays no obligation at all, but only confers a power and discretion on the Magistrate to examine on his own account witnesses other than those examined by the prosecution, if he considers it to be in the interests of justice to do so.