- (1.) The only question that arises for determination in this appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, under Art. 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution, is the constitutionality of the provisions of Ss. 207 and 207A, Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), which, read together, were introduced into the Code by Act XXVI of 1955. The 26 appellants have been committed to the Court of Session, Guntur Division, to take their trial for offences punishable under Ss. 147, 148, 323, 324 and 302, read with Ss. 34 and 149, Indian Penal Code. They impleaded the State of Andhra Pradesh as the sole respondent. The Union of India has been allowed to intervene on an application made in that behalf in view of the fact that the provisions of the Central Act have been impugned as unconstitutional.
(2.) For the purposes of this appeal, it is only necessary to state the following relevant facts. The local police took cognizance of a serious occurrence of rioting with murder on 22-12-1955. The local police investigated the case, and after recording such evidence as it could collect in respect of the occurrence, submitted a charge-sheet under the aforesaid sections of the Indian Penal Code, to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to entertain the case. The Magistrate, following the procedure laid down in S. 207A, of the Code, committed the persons shown in the charge-sheet as the accused persons, to take their trial before the Court of Session. A number of applications in revision under Ss. 435 and 439 of the Code, were made on behalf of the accused persons, to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, to quash the order of commitment, chiefly on the ground that the said order having been passed under the provisions of S. 207A of the Code, was void, as those provisions were unconstitutional for the reason that they introduced discrimination as against accused persons in respect of whom a police charge-sheet had been submitted. The revisional applications were heard by Krishna Rao, J., who dismissed them, holding that the provisions impugned were not unconstitutional and that, therefore, the order of commitment was valid in law. The appellants applied for and obtained the necessary certificate under Art. 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court.
(3.) The arguments addressed to the High Court have been repeated in this Court and are to the effect that Ss. 207 and 207A, as they now stand, provide for two separate procedures in the committing court, namely, (1) in respect of a case instituted on a police report for which the procedure specified in S. 207A is prescribed, and (2) in respect of any other proceeding, the procedure laid down in other provisions of Chapter XVIII is prescribed. The argument is that a comparison and contrast of the two different procedures prescribed in respect of the two classes of cases, when examined in their details, show that the procedure in respect of a case instituted on a police report is less advantageous to the accused than the other procedure. Thus, it is further argued, in the sections following S. 207A in Chapter XVIII of the Code, the accused have been granted facilities which are not available to them in the procedure laid down in S. 207A. By way of illustration, it was urged that under S. 208 (3), it is open to an accused person to apply to the magistrate to issue process to compel the attendance of any witness or the production of any document, but sub-s. (2) of S. 207A, which corresponds to the provisions of S. 208 (3), speaks only of the prosecution and not of the accused, Again, it is pointed out that sub-s. (4) of S. 207A, makes reference only to the prosecution evidences. Whereas the corresponding S. 208 (1) makes reference to the evidence that may be produced in support of the prosecution or on behalf of the accused. Similarly, it has been pointed out that there are no provisions in S. 207A corresponding to those of S. 209 (2) and S. 213 (2), empowering the magistrate to discharge the accused; nor is there any provision in the impugned S. 207A corresponding to S. 215 relating to quashing of commitments. Further, it was pointed out that whereas S. 209 (1) contains the words "not sufficient grounds for committing the accused person", sub-s (6) of S. 207A, has the words "no grounds for committing the accused". It has further been argued that in the new procedure adopted in the impugned S.207A, the accused person has been deprived of the benefits under. Ss. 162 and 215 of the Code, and under Ss. 27, 101 to 106 and 114.ill (g) of the Evidence Act. It has, thus, been sought to be made out that the procedure laid down in S. 207A in the matter of commitment is less advantageous to the accused persons than the one prescribed in the succeeding sections of Chapter XVIII. ;