STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. AMARJIT SINGH & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga, by his order dated 22.4.1997 committed the case State Vs. Amarjit Singh & Ors. (F.I.R. No. 208 dated 24.12.1996) under Sections 452, 450, 326, 336, 323 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code to the Sessions Court. Against this order of committal, Amarjit Singh and others (respondents-herein) filed Criminal Revision No.50 of 16.5.1997 before the Sessions Court, Faridkot, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, by his order dated 12.1.1997 allowed the Criminal Revision Petition and set aside the order of commitment in respect of Sec. 450 of the Indian Penal Code and directed that the challan in State Vs. Amarjit Singh & Ors. be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, for trial of the other offences under Sec. 326, 323, 336, 452, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code since they were triable by a Magistrate.

(2.) It is against this order that the State of Punjab has preferred this Revision. The main contention of the petitioner-State is that no revision petition lies against the order of commitment and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not right in entertaining and allowing the revision - petition against the order of commitment and passing the order as mentioned above.

(3.) After hearing the counsel for both the sides, I am also of the view that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this regard cannot be sustained. By this order of committal, the rights of any of the parties has not been finally decided. Therefore, against this order a Criminal Revision under Sec. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable at all. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was not right in analysing the material before him at that stage in revision to come to the conclusion that no case under Sec. 450 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and, therefore, the case was not triable exclusively by a Court of Session. If at the time of hearing for the purposes of framing charges against the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, finds that there is no material for framing a charge under Sec. 450 I.P.C. the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, will be entitled to pass, appropriate orders according to law, and not in a Revision Petition filed against the order of commitment. Therefore, this revision petition is allowed, setting aside the order passed by the learned 'Additional Sessions Judge, in Criminal Revision No. 50 of 16.5.1997. The learned Additional Sessions Judge will take back the Sessions Case on his file and will proceed will it in accordance with law. Petition allowed.