Kailash Nath Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicant Sri Sri Shankar Sharma at some length and perused the committal order. The accused applicant have been committed to the Court of Session to stand their trial under Section 120B/420 IPC read with Section 106 of the Indian Railways Act. Learned counsel for the applicant strenuously argued that no prima facie case has been made out for committing the accused to the Sessions Court and as such the committal order deserves to be quashed, in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. It is not disputed before me that Section 337(2A) of the Old Criminal P.C. would apply to the present case which reads as follows: In every case where a person has accepted a tender of pardon and has been examined under sub -section (2), the Magistrate before whom the proceedings are pending shall, if he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of an offence commit him for trial to the Court of Session or High Court, as the case may be. This provision came to be considered in several cases and reference to one of them may be made here to indicate that the Magistrate has committed no error in committing the accused for trial before the Court of Session. In Emperor v. Peru : 1925 (26) Cri LJ 216 : A.I.R. 1925 Oud 472, Oudh Judicial Commissioner's Court it was observed: The meaning of the provision contained in Section 337(2A) of the Cr.P.C. is that whenever an approver is examined the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial but must commit the accused persons for trial to the Court of Session. Similar view appears to have been taken by the Rangoon High Court in Nga Kin v. Emperor, 1925 (26) Cri LJ 829 :, AIR 1925 Rang 207, and by the Lahore High Court in Jimum Shah v. Emperor : 1925 (26) Cri LJ 549 : AIR 1925 Lah. 378. These decisions have been referred to in the judgment passed by the committing Magistrate and I do not find that any error has been committed by him in taking a view which is supported by the above decisions while committing the case to the Court of Sessions.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant however, strenuously contended that in spite of examining the approver, the Magistrate has further to be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of the offence. The observations made in the aforesaid decisions could not take away the jurisdiction of the Magistrate in further examining the question whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed the offences or not it appears to be correct that the bare reading of the section itself support the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I find that merely because of the fact that the approver on being granted pardon was examined, the jurisdiction of the Magistrate does not cease there, but he has further to feel satisfied whether reasonable grounds are there to believe that the accused is guilty of an offence and it is after this satisfaction that he has to commit the accused for trial to the Court of Session or High Court, as the case may be. In the present case, however, I find that the Committing Magistrate has referred to a decision of this Court dated 23rd of April, 1980 which was passed by Hon'ble P.N. Bakshi, J. while rejecting the application under Section 482 of the Criminal P.C. In the order dated 23rd of April, 1980 the Hon'ble Judge while rejecting the application has expressed that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused under Sections 120B, 420 IPC and 106 of the Railways Act. In this view of the matter I do not find that any error was committed by the Committing Magistrate in passing the impugned committal order.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant while referring to certain observations in Tariff Act etc. urged that no case under Section 420 IPC can be made out and the applicant cannot be considered to have committed any offence under Section 420 IPC merely on the ground they had booked the goods by paying wrong tariff charges. He further contended that the Railway Department could realise the freight from the applicants by filing a suit and so this matter is purely of a civil liability and no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out.;