- (1.) N. B. Asthana, J. The revisionists was committed to stand trial in the Court of Session by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad on 28. 1. 95 for the offence punish able under Sections 147,148,149 and 302 I. P. C, P. S. Kayamganj, Farrukhabad.
(2.) THE grievance of the revisionist is that he was committed without following the procedure as prescribed by Sections 207 and 209 Cr. P. C. and, therefore, the order of commitment should be quashed. The revisionist had appeared before the Committing Court. On the date of com mitment he was however not present. An application was moved on behalf of his counsel which was allowed and his personal appearance was exempted. It cannot therefore be said that the accused had not appeared before the Magistrate during commitment proceedings. Under the provisions of Section 209 Cr. P. C. the case is committed and not the accused. There were also co-accused who were present on that date and then the case was com mitted. It cannot therefore be said that there was any violation of Section 209 Cr. P. C. in committing the revisionist to the court of Session. The copy of the order sheet filed shows that on 28. 1. 95 copies of the papers were supplied to the counsel for the revisionist. The counsel objected orally that some other required copies have not been supplied to him. The court directed that the counsel for the accused would let the court know by way of an application as to what copies have not been supplied and then the matter would be looked into. It does not appear from the order sheet filed that any such application was given. It was contended on behalf of the revisionist that such an application was given but it is not traceable on record. It, however, does not appear that any complaint regarding the disappearance of that application was made before the committing court or before the District Judge on the administrative side. An affidavit has been filed in this Court. In para 7 of the affidavit it is stated that he moved two applications on 28. 1. 95, one application was moved for exemption of his personal attendance while the second application was moved for supplying the copies of statements under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and other relevant materials. The application moved for exemption of personal attendance has not been misplaced. It is however a matter for inquiry as to when any such application was moved and if so who was responsible for its loss. However, nothing has been stated either in the affidavit or in the grounds of revision as to what relevant material or copy of the statements were not supplied to the revisionist.
(3.) IN view of the fact that there is an endorsement of the counsel for the accused regarding the receipt of copies, it cannot be said that no copies at all were supplied to the revisionist. The commitment order shows that all the required copies were furnished to the accused under Section 207 Cr. P. C. IN view of the above it cannot be said that the committing court has at fault in committing the case without following the provisions of Section 207 Cr. P. C. However, by way of abundant precaution so that the revisionist may not be prejudiced in any way in his defence, the trial court is directed to ensure that all the relevant copies required to be supplied under Section 207 Cr. P. C. have been supplied to the revisionist before recording evidence in the trial.;