CHIDRA LINGAMURTHY Vs. STATE
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) In P. R. C. No. 2 of 1962, the learned Principal Munsif-Magistrate of Warangal passed an order committing the three accused therein to the Sessions Court, Warangal for trial after framing charges under Section 467 I. P. C. against A-1 to A-3 and under Sections 209, 471 and 193 I. P. C. against A-1. The three accused filed this revision petition for quashing the order of committal.
(2.) In the order of committal, it is mentioned that the committal is under Section 207-A (7) Cr. P. C. and accordingly, the revision petition mentions that it is filed under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. But, in fact, the committal inquiry was held on the basis of a complaint filed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Warangal and not on a police report. Therefore, in view of Section 207 Cr. P. C. the procedure which had , to be followed was that indicated in Section 207 (b) and Section 208 Cr. P. C. onwards. The committal must be deemed to have been made under Section 213 Cr. P. C. and not under Section 207-A(7). Consequently, the petition for quashing must be deemed to be under Section 215 Cr. P. C. which is the correct section applicable to this case. Under that Section, quashing can be done only on a point of law.
(3.) The relevant facts are as follows: A-l filed O. S. No. 95 of 1960 on the file of the Munsif-Magistrate, Warangal. It was transferred to the Sub-Court, Warangal and tried by the learned Subordinate Judge as O. S. No. 38 of 1961. The suit was for recovery of money due under a promissory note dated 21-7-1957 purporting to have been executed by the sole defendant, Chinna Veerayya in favour of the sole plaintiff namely, Al, for Rs. 1,200.00. The learned Subordinate Judge, after trial pf the suit, pronounced judgment on 16-8-1961 dismissing the suit with costs. In the course of the judgment, he observed as follows: "I feel that the plaintiff must have forged this pronote in collusion with the attestors (A. 2 and A. 3) as is evident from the anachronism in it. So it is expedient in the interests of justice that the plaintiff should be prosecuted for forgery. So the plaintiff is liable for prosecution and steps will be taken for the same in due course." A-2 and A-3 were attestors, of the promissory note and also deposed as P. Ws. 2 and 3 in that suit in favour of the plaintiff (A-l) who was P.W. 1. The learned Subordinate Judge duly issued a notice to A-1 to show cause and, after hearing him, passed an order dated 29-8-1961 as follows: "Complaint with enclosures and covering letter is sent to Additional Munsif Magistrate, Warangal... Complaint is preferred against plaintiff as A-l and against both the attestors as A-2 and A-3 and despatched to Additional Munsif-Magistrate." In accordance with that order he preferred a complaint and sent it to the Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Warangal. The latter took the case on file as P. R.C. No. 22 of 1961 and passed an order of committal dated 23-10-1961. The accused filed Criminal Revision Case No. 807 of 1961. It came up for hearing before our learned brother, Sharfuddin Ahmed, J. He held that the contention made on behalf of the accused, that the learned Subordinate judge was not justified in laying a complaint, was not tenable as the order of the learned Subordinate Judge had become final, no attempt having been made to have it set aside. But, all the same, he held that the commitment was bad and had to be quashed because the provisions of Sections 211 and 212 Cr. P. C. had not been complied with. He accordingly quashed the committal and sent the matter back to the learned Magistrate for disposal according to law.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.