ADYA PRASAD Vs. RAJINDRA MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision by the three accused persons is directed against the order dated 22.3.1972 of the Sessions Judge of Monghyr in Criminal Revision No. 4 of 1971. Under this order, the Sessions Judge has directed the Magistrate to commit these petitioners to the Court of Session for trial under Section 386, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) ON 13.12.1968, this Opposite Party (Rajindra Mahto) filed a petition of complaint against these accused persons on allegations that they wanted him to sell his homestead land to them and on his refusal to do so, they were trying to vex him in different ways. In that sequence, they had made assault on him, for which he has instituted a regular case against them. They, however, wanted him to withdraw that case, to which he was not agreeable. On 12.12.1968, they caught hold of him and, after assaulting him with lathi, forcibly dragged him to their house where accused Adya Prasad brought out four stamped and two sada papers and asked the complainant to put his thumb marks on them, threatening to kill him if he did not do so. On complainant's protest against that high -handed act of theirs, accused Adya again made assault on him with lathi and asked his son to bring bhala so that he could kill him of Sessions Judge, order staying further proceedings passed - Order of commitment thus pending when new Code came into force - Offence under Section 386, Indian Penal Code not triable by Sessions Court under new Code - Yet committal order must be passed as committal proceedings were pending.

(3.) THE impugned order of the Sessions Judge directing the Magistrate to commit the accused persons to the court of session for facing trial under Section 386, I.P.C. was passed on 22.3.1972. On 11.4.1972, the petitioners filed the instant revision. It was admitted on 12.4.1972 with the direction for stay of further proceedings in the court below till the disposal of the revision. It is, perhaps, in this context that a formal commitment by the Magistrate in pursuance to the impugned order of the Sessions Judge could not be effected prior to the coming into being of the new Code on 1.4.1974. But for this stay the Magistrate would have perhaps recorded his commitment order earlier to 1.4.1974. On the facts as they obtained in this behalf on 1.4.1974, the date on which this new Code came into force, at the most this enquiry under Chapter XVIII could be treated as pending before the Magistrate. In that situation, under the proviso to Section 482(2)(a) of the new Code the Magistrate was to deal with and dispose it of in accordance with Section 209 of the old Code, under which the Magistrate was required to commit the accused to the Court of Session since the matter related to an offence under Section 386. Indian Penal Code, which in its nature had been made exclusively triable by a Court of Session under the law as it then existed. Merely because, this offence under the new Code has been made triable by a Magistrate of the First Class could not make any substantial change so far as the contemplated commitment is concerned. The matter would have stood on a different footing if the commitment proceeding in this behalf was not pending from before the commencement of this new Code.