BODH RAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were charged for an offence under Section 436 of the Ranbir Penal Code. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhaderwah, held the commitment proceedings against them, the offence under Section 436 of the R. P. C. being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. On the Conclusion of the commitment proceedings the Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged the petitioners holding that there was no ground for commitment of the petitioners to the Court of Sessions. The State brought a revision application against this order of discharge before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah. The learned Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah, allowed the revision application, set aside the order of discharge passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhaderwah, and directed that the petitioners be committed to the court of sessions for the trial of an offence under Section 436 of the R.P.C. with due regard to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah, is the subject matter of this revision application.

(2.) THE facts, necessary to be stated to appreciate the points which arise in this revision application for consideration, are as follows: -

(3.) ON 26 -7 -1970 one, Madho Lal Kotwal, filed a complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhaderwah, that the accused, mentioned in the complaint who are the petitioners before me, had set his kotha (a summer hut) situate at village Dhar Awalin Illaqa Kalar Tehsil Bhaderwah, on fire on the evening of 22nd June, 1970, in consequence whereof the whole Kotha was completely destroyed causing to the complainant a loss of Rs. 1,000/ -. This complaint appears to have been forwarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhaderwah, to the officer incharge Police Station, Pranu, presumably under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P.C. for investigation. The Police concerned accordingly registered a case under Section 436 of the R.P.C. After investigation a charge -sheet was presented against the accused in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhaderwah; who as stated earlier, held the commitment proceedings. In the course of the commitment proceedings the prosecution produced four eye -witnesses namely Hans Raj, Gandar, Gianchand and Chuni Lal, two of whom namely Chuni Lal and Gianchand did not support the prosecution and were accordingly declared hostile. The remaining two witnesses namely Hans Raj and Gandar supported the prosecution case deposing that the accused were seen setting fire to the Kotha belonging to the complainant. On a consideration of the evidence the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhaderwah, came to the conclusion that there were no grounds for committing the accused to stand their trial in the court of Sessions. He accordingly discharged them.