ABDUR RAHIM Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two References made by the Sessions Judge of Sylhet recommending that two commitments by which 44 and 8 accused persons respectively were committed to the Court of Sessions for trial under Section 120B, 489 A, 489B, 489C and 489D of the Indian Penal Code be quashed and a fresh enquiry, preliminary to commitment, ordered on the ground that the provisions of Section 860, Cr. P.C., were not compiled with in enquiries that were held.

(2.) It appears that after the respective commitments in which altogether over 300 witnesses were examined, the two cases were made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge and on trial being commenced by him, 102 witnesses for the prosecution were examined but the provisions of Section 360, Cr. P.C., were not com-plied with in respect of any of them; that thereafter the attention of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge being drawn to the decision of this Court in the case of Hira Lal Ghose V/s. The King-Emperor , the procedure of complying with said provisions was adopted in respect of prosecution witnesses, who were thenceforward examined, and in this way about 38 more prosecution witnesses were examined and their depositions were duly recorded in accordance with the said provisions.

(3.) Those References have been made by the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of a petition filed by the Public Prosecutor before him by which the Public Prosecutor prayed for a withdrawal of the case to his own file from that of the Assistant Sessions Judge on various grounds, and for obtaining an order for a de novo trial. The learned Judge withdrew the case to his own file, purporting to act under Section 528 (1), Cr. P.C., and then made these References under the provisions of Section 438, Cr. P.C.