STATE Vs. MAN MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of First Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. dated 7 -4 -1984. From the impugned order it is revealed that one Man Mohan Singh who was accused in a case u/s 302/149 RPC was proceeded against u/s 512 Cr. P. C. The case against the other accused persons was committed to the Court of Session and before the court of Sessions Man Mohan Singh accused had appearded and surrendered himself before the court and the learned Sessions Judge ordered dropping proceedings u/s 512 Cr. P. C. against him and fixed the case for preliminary hearing The accused was handed over to the authorities for being locked up in judicial lock -up

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the State has assailed this order as being violative of the procedure established by law. It is further contended that the accused could be tried by the Sessions Judge only after he was committed by the Judicial Magistrate. The Judicial Magistrate had taken proceedings u/s 512 Cr. P. C. against him and it was within the powers of the learned Sessions Judge to drop the said proceeding and in the absence of following the procedure provided u/s 193 Cr, P. C. accused could not be charge sheeted or tried .The accused should have been handed ever to the police so that investigation could be completed by the police and challan produced against him and it was obligatory for the accused to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the case he wanted to be tried alongwith the other accused persons by the Sessions Judge. The surrender of the accused before the learned Sessions Judge is also assailed. In support of his submissions learned connsel for, the state has referred to the provisions of 193 (I)Cr. P. C, which reads as under : "(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no court of sessions shall take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the accused has been committed to it by a Magistrate duly empowered in that behalf"

(3.) IT is further submitted by him that Sec. 351 Cr P. C Code also would not empower the trial court to, frame charge against the accused because the said section was not applicable to the facts of the present case. This section lays down that for trying a persons who was not accused in the original case but against whom evidence was available may be added as an accused and proceeded against to the learned counsel for the state, Sec. 351 Cr. P. C. Code was not applicable and the trial Court had no power to frame a charge against the said accused. Learned Counsel for the State further argued that Sec. 205 -D Cr. Pr. Code also Could not empower the trial court to add the accused who was named in the FIR in support of his submissions he has referred to an authority of Allahbad High Court Viz : Onkar Singh and others Vs State, 1976 Cr. Law Journal 1774, He also referred to an authority of this court viz: State Vs. Mohd. Raman and Ors. 1981 Cr L J 783, and of Calcutta High Court viz: Basudeo Mondal and Ors Vs Dud Kr Paramanjek and anr. 1982 Cr. L. J. 1654, and of Gauhati High Court vix: Gunarm Tanti and another Vs. State, 1983 Cr L. J. 289.