STATE Vs. MATU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two references come on the report of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, dated 26-5-1959, and arise in the following circumstances:

(2.) IN village Dheendhwas Bichla a dispute arose about a field Khasra No. 129 between two parties. According to the prosecution, one Lala Khati was the owner of the said field and before his death he sold it to Chandra Jat, who began to cultivate it. After Lala's death, Ladu Khati asserted his son Pala's title over the said property on the ground that Pala was adopted by Lala prior to his death. The story goes that on 10th August, 1957, a number of persons, who sided with the two parties, referred above, assembled at the disputed field and there was a clash between the two. It is alleged that deadly weapons were used by members of both the parties, with the result that several persons were injured and Dhanna belonging to Chandra's party and Ladu Khati belonging to the other party were done to death. After investigation, the police put up separate challans against each party for offences under Sections 302, 148, 302/149 and 447 I. P. C. In one case, which is Sessions Case No. 2 of 1959, Chandra and 11 others were challaned, while in the other, which is Sessions Case No. 3 of 1959, Matu and 6 others were prosecuted, in the court of Magistrate First Class, Chirawa. Before the said magistrate started preliminary inquiry in these cases, Narain son of Ladu Khati filed a complaint involving 7 accused besides the 12, who Were challaned by the police. In other words, he wanted that in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1959, 19 persons should be convict-ed. Similarly, Lachhman filed a complaint involving 15 more accused besides the seven, who were challaned by the police in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1959, i. e. , his complaint was against 22 accused. The Magistrate conducted separate inquiries in both the cases but he consolidated in each case the enquiry with regard to the complaint with the challan put up by the police. Eventually, he committed 19 accused in Sessions Case No. 2 and 22 accused in Sessions Case No. 3 in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge has reported that the committing court ought not to have consolidated the inquiry emanating from the complaint with the inquiry proceeding on the police challan in each case and that since he has committed this illegality, his committal order in both the cases should be quashed and he should be directed to split up the inquiries and proceed separately with the private complaint and in the police challan in each case.