BHANWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by 7 accused persons, who have been committed by the Munsiff Magistrate, Desuri for facing their under sec. 120 B, 307, 392, 398, 458, 324, 148 and 149 I. P. C. in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi. The grounds for the transfer urged before me are that it will be convenient for the defence to engage eminent lawyers from Jodhpur for defending the accused at Pali and also because the learned Munsiff-Magistrate could not commit the case directly to the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Sirohi, in view of the provisions of secs. 9 and 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) IT will be proper to first dispose of the legal question raised before me, Mr. Bhiraraj, learned counsel for the applicants, argued that under the Criminal Procedure Code there is only one sessions court in one sessions division, who takes cognizance of sessions cases on commitment, and an Additional Sessions Judge only works as a Sessions Judge when any case is transferred to him by the Sessions Judge and the law does not permit any direct commitment to the Additional Sessions Judge. He urged, therefore, that the order of direct commitment is illegal. He relied on Hem Singh vs. The State (l); Kamleshwar Singh vs. Dharamdeo Singh (2) and In re, Pasupulati Nanjappa (3 ). The learned Deputy Government Advocate placed before me a Notification No. F. 19 (27) Jud/68/iv dated 31st May, 1968, issued by the State of Rajasthan in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (2) of sec. 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and urged that in view of this general order it was competent for the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, to receive the case by direct commitment.