EMPEROR Vs. ACHALDAS JETHAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is unnecessary in this case to define the reasons for which a Magistrate may properly commit a case to the Sessions. Nor need we decide which of the two conflicting views are correct, namely whether a Magistrate's powers of committal are confined to cases where he considers he cannot give an adequate punishment, or whether he may take into consideration other grounds such as are enunciated by Mr. Justice Heaton and Mr. Justice Shah in Emperor V/s. Bhimaji Venkaji [1917] 42 Bom. 172 and Emperor V/s. Nauji Samal [1913] 38 Bom. 114. In either event the Magistrate has to state his reasons for committing to the Sessions a case, which he himself is competent to try. There are authorities in this Court to show that if he gives no reasons whatever as in Emperor V/s. Nanji Samal [1913] 38 Bom. 114, or if he gives reasons which are bad in law as in Emperor V/s. Bhimaji Venkaji [1917] 42 Bom. 172 then this Court has jurisdiction to quash the committal as being bad in law within the meaning of Section 215, Criminal Procedure Code. In Emperor V/s. Bhimaji Venkaji [1917] 42 Bom. 172 the Magistrate had committed a case at the request of the parties and in reliance on a Government resolution, and this Court held that chose were not reasons which the Magistrate could properly take into consideration.

(2.) Now here the Magistrate has given only two reasons, namely, first, that he has been requested to commit the case by one of the accused; and, secondly, that according to the pleader for the accused "this case has created a sort of sensation in the Marwadi community and I the amount of cheating is large." As regards the request by the accused that is not a ground in law for the Magistrate's order. As regards the case creating a sensation in the Marwadi community, that also seems to us an insufficient ground on which to base a legal discretion. Similarly too, as regards the large amount of rupees, viz. Rs. 4,000, of which the accused are alleged to have cheated the complainant, that in itself is not, iii our opinion, a ground for committing the case to the Sessions. But for the grounds I have mentioned, I gather that the learned Magistrate would have refused to commit the case; for he says : "Ordinarily, I might not have been induced to grant this request. But coming as it does from the accused, I have come to the conclusion that it should be sent to the Sessions Court.

(3.) In the view we take the learned Magisfc rate misdirected himself on a point of law in exercising his discretion as to whether the case should be committed to the Sessions or not. Consequently in law his order is bad and we have jurisdiction to set it aside.