AMBA LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision application before me raises a question of procedure. The gravamen of the matter is whether in a proceeding for commitment Under Section 207-A, Criminal P. C. when the Magistrate, after recording the evidence, is of opinion that there are no grounds for committing the accused person for trial, but, on the other hand, he thinks that the case should be tried before him- self he is required to proceed to record the evidence de novo or he can act on the evidence already recorded by him and proceed further in the matter. At this point I may briefly narrate the events.

(2.) THE accused petitioners Amba Lal and Sharwar Lai were proceeded against for offences Under Sections 307, 325, 379 and 323 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code in accordance with Section 207-A, Criminal P. C. on a challan presented by the Station House Officer, Padu. During the committal, proceedings the prosecution examined two doctors P. W. 1, Dr. S. C. Mathur and P. W. 3 Dr. Hargovind and one witness P. W. 2, Ram Singh. After considering this evidence and the documents produced by the police along with the challan the learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, Merta City was of the opinion that the case was not fit to be committed and in his opinion offences Under Sections 325 and 323 were disclosed against the accused. Accordingly the learned Magistrate framed the charges. The plea of the accused was recorded and the prosecution witnesses examined during the committal proceedings were recalled for cross-examination and then the remaining evidence of the prosecution was examined. The learned Magistrate then recorded the statement of the accused Under Section 342, Criminal P. C. and thereafter recorded the evidence for the defence. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused for the charge Under Section 325, Indian Penal Code, but he convicted them on charges Under Section 323, Indian Penal Code and the accused were sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500/- in each case, in default 3 months simple imprisonment.

(3.) THE accused went up in appeal to the court of the learned Sessions Judge at Merta. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the Magistrate was in error in acting on the evidence recorded during committal proceedings. According to the learned Judge, the Magistrate was required to proceed de novo from the stage of the proceedings Under Section 251-A, Criminal P. C. , that is, the learned Magistrate should have first framed a charge then recorded the evidence of the four witnesses de novo and then he could have recorded the other evidence in the case. The essentials of the judgment of the learned Judge will be clear from the following passage: The evidence in cases where the Code provides Under Section 251-A, Criminal P. C. is evidence that is recorded after the framing of the charge. Section 251-A, Criminal P. C. does not permit of recording of any evidence before framing of the charge, much less admitting any such evidence as relevant, though it has been recorded in the proceedings under committal enquiry. The evidence recorded for the purposes of committal enquiry is one thing and evidence recorded for purpose of trial is completely a different thing. The question of inconvenience and injustice should not arise when the law is clear that in cases where procedure provided Under Section 251-A, Criminal P. C. is adopted, the evidence admissible would be only that which is produced after framing of the charge. So many considerations arise in the matter. The defence may not think fit at all to cross examine the prosecution witnesses at the stage of the committal proceeding. The purpose behind the two namely (i) an enquiry committal Under Section 207-A, Criminal P. C. and (ii) trial Under Section 251-A, Criminal P. C. have got different purposes and so also approaches. Therefore, I do not think I should adhere to the opinion expressed in Manipur case that offering of the witness for further cross-examination is a sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 251-A, Criminal P. C. ; the cross-examination cannot be a good and sufficient substitute for the examination of the witnesses.