STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. MADHO RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two references have been made by Sessions Judge, Kangra. These arise out of the same incident.

(2.) MADHO Ram, Bansi Lal, and Jonki Ram accused were duly committed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, to the Court of Session, for standing trial under Section 302 of the Penal Code. The trial was duly held and before the arguments could be concluded, it was brought to the notice of Sessions Judge that a cross case arising out of the same incident was pending trial whose proceedings had been stayed. The parties requested the Sessions Judge that that case should also be tried. The Sessions Judge, by his order dated 31st Aug. 1981, deferred the arguments in the Sessions trial till evidence in the counter case was recorded.

(3.) THE present Sessions Judge succeeded to the then Sessions Judge who passed the aforementioned order. When the case came up for hearing before the present Sessions Judge, he was not sure whether he could try the second case (Sessions Trial No. 11 of 1980 ). The doubt had arisen because, according to the Sessions Judge, there has to be a commitment under Section 209 of the Cri P. C. before the Sessions Judge could take cognizance of a case. This commitment could only be done in respect of cases which are exclusively triable by the Court of Session. Since the case, which has been transferred from the court of Magistrate, was not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Sessions Judge was doubtful whether he had the jurisdiction to proceed with the case.