MANIKKA PADAYACHI Vs. KING EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am asked in this Criminal Revision Case to revise the order of the District Magistrate of Trichinopoly by which under the provisions, as I take it, of Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code (and not 436 as it appears in the papers) he directed, setting aside the order of discharge passed by the First-class Magistrate of Udaiyarpalaiyam, that all the accused in the case be committed for trial to the Sessions Court of Trichinopoly.

(2.) The order of the First-class Magistrate of Udaiyarpalaiyam was passed as the result; of the inquiry into the case which was triable by a Court of Session and under the provisions of Section 209, Clause 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, The learned District Magistrate has in his order set out as follows: I direct that under Section 136, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused be committed for trial for the offences, for which they have been charged. Warrants will issue for the arrest of the accused and their production before the Court of Session.

(3.) This order was made by him on a Criminal Revision Petition filed on behalf of the first prosecution witness and the only persons who were made respondents to the petition were accused 1 to 13 and accused 18 and the prayer was that those respondents should be arrested and ordered to be committed for trial before the Sessions Judge of Trichinopoly. The other accused in the case, namely, accused 14 to 17 and 19 to 23, were not made respondents to that petition, and no notice appears also to have been ordered to or served upon them. In these circumstances, it must be fairly clear that the order of the District Magistrate to the effect that all the accused should be arrested and committed for trial to the Sessions Court without excluding accused 14 to 17 and 19 to 23 from the scope and operation of the order was due merely to a mistake, but none the less serious, so far as those accused were concerned. As those accused, namely, accused 14 to 17 and 19 to 23 were not respondents to the Criminal Revision Case and were not required to be committed for trial under the petition the District Magistrate was considering and as in any case they have had no opportunity of showing cause why an order of commitment should not be made against them also, the order of the District Magistrate so worded as to include them also is clearly wrong. The order therefore will be modified by substituting in the operative portion for the word "accused" the words "accused 1 to 13 and accused 18." The other accused, namely, 14 to 17 and 19 to 23, if already arrested under the order of the District Magistrate, will be forthwith released and set at liberty. The order of commitment so far as the said accused 14 to 17 and 19 to 28 are concerned is also set aside. As regards the other accused, however, there is no such irregularity in the order of the District Magistrate and they were, further, parties--respondents to the Criminal Revision Case filed before him and it was after hearing them that the learned District Magistrate has passed the order in question.