NAUBAT Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Ghazipur recommending that an order passed by a First Class Magistrate for the summary trial of 31 accused should be set aside. A complaint was lodged against 31 accused alleging facts, which if believed, would indicate that offences under Secs.147 and 427, Indian Indian Penal Code, had been committed by them. This complaint Was filed before one Magistrate. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged under Section 190(a) of the Criminal P.C. that is to say, he took cognizance on a complaint. He then, under Sec. 202, directed an investigation by the police. The police expressed the opinion that the facts justified the accused being put on their trial under Secs.143 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, and that it was a case where the summary method of trial might be employed. The Magistrate appears to have accepted the police report and the case was transferred by the District Magistrate for a summary trial to another Magistrate. The accused thereupon made an application that the case could not be tried summarily which was rejected by the second Magistrate by order dated 26 August 1926. In this order the Magistrate has stated that no doubt there is a large number of accused, but the sections are such that they can be tried summarily. In case I convict the accused and also bind them over under Section 106 the order becomes appealable.

(2.) Then there is a reference to Section 107 which is not understood. The Sessions Judge is of opinion that the rejection of the application of the accused against the trial being heard summarily was improper on the grounds (a) that the complaint, if true, would indicate offences under Secs.147 and 427; (b) that there were a large number of accused; (c) that there would be no appeal in case a non appealable sentence was passed.

(3.) It may be added that in the application of the accused against the trial being heard summarily, it is stated that no order under Section 106 could be passed upon conviction of an offence under Section 143 or Section 427 which appears to be correct. No sufficient ground appears to me for interference in revision. A Magistrate is entitled after taking cognizance of a complaint to order a police investigation and to take that investigation into consideration when considering under what sections the accused should be put on their trial, otherwise there would appear to be no reason for the Legislature allowing the Court to order investigation by the police under Section 202.