RAMLAL & ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated June 6, 1985 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand.

(2.) One Chhogalal had filed a complaint against the petitioners for giving a beating to him on Feb. 2, 1975, when he with his mother had gone to irrigate the field. Case under section 307 read with section 34 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Railmagra. The police after investigation filed the challan under sections 307, 147, 148, 149 and 326 I.P.C in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Rajsamand. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Udaipur. The learned Sessions Judge did not consider it to be a case falling under section 307 I.P.C. so as to make it exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The learned Judge also did not find it to be a case under section 326 I.P.C. and framed the charges under sections 324, 147 and 148 I.P.C. against the petitioners and transferred the case for trial for those charges to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur. The case had a long journey and travelled the courts at Railmagra and Rajsamand. It again came up in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur and was transferred to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand. When the case reached the stage of arguments, the Court, at the request of the Public Prosecutor resummoned the Medical Officer for examination and recorded the statement. In view of the statement of Doctor Chiranjilal (P.W. 6) so examined, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand opined that there were grounds for charge sheeting the petitioners under section 307 I.P.C. In view of that opinion the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, by the impugned order committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand for the trial of the petitioners for the charges under sections 307, 307/149, 326/149 and 148/149 I.P.C. The petitioners have now challenged the legality and correctness of that order of commitment in this revision petition.

(3.) I heard Mr. D.S. Shishodia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Miss Sumitra Sankhla, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully examined the record of the case.