EMPEROR Vs. NANJI SAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the Magistrate, as appears quite plainly from Clause 2 of Section 83 of the Registration Act, could have tried the case himself but he committed it to the Court of Session. He did not however give any reason why he should commit it rather than try it himself. The law requires that reasons for commitment shall be recorded (see S. 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code). IN a case of this kind where the trial may either be by the Magistrate himself or by the Court of Session, I think that reasons for commitment must include not merely reasons for not discharging the accused, but reasons for sending him before the Court of Session. There has, therefore, been a failure to comply with the law. This no doubt would amount to no more than an irregularity if the case were one which plainly ought to be committed to the Sessions. But where, as appears here, the case is not one which ought to have been committed, then to commit without giving reasons is more than an irregularity. It is, it seems to me, an illegality.

(2.) FOR this reason I would quash the commitment and it follows the case will have to be disposed of by the Magistrate who committed it.