B.R. James, J. - (1.) THE facts which have given rise to this Revision are briefly as follows. Govind Ram, a resident of Kanpur, is the contractor of a licensed liquor shop in Etawah City, while Ram Bharosey and Jagannath are respectively the salesman and the munim of the shop. A report about the theft or misappropriation of some liquor from another shop was received at the Etawah Kotwali, and Sub Inspector Munshi Lal was deputed to enquire into the matter. In the course of the enquiry suspicion was thrown on Govind Ram's liquor shop, and accordingly at about 3 p.m. on 29 -11 -1954 S. I. Munshi Lal searched it in the presence of Ram Bharosey salesman and Jagannath munim. Nothing incriminating was found. Next day at 1 -15 pm. Ram Bharosey despatched this telegram to his matter Govind Ram at Kanpur: "Shop searched. Come immediately." Govind Ram arrived on 1st December. On the 6th December Ram Bharosey filed a complaint against S. I. Munshi Lal and some police officials and private persons -eight accused in all -for an offence of dacoity(sic) Under Section 395, IPC. In this complaint it was alleged that the Sub -Inspector accompanied by the other accused persons raided the shop and searched it but did not find any stolen liquor, that Ram Bharosey and jagannath were beaten, that Rs. 910 was forcibly taken away from the cash box, that Jagannath was handcuffed and that after the money had been appropriated his handcuffs were removed. After a preliminary enquiry Under Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure a commitment enquiry u/Ch. XVIII Code of Criminal Procedure was made by a first class Magistrate. The learned Magistrate recorded all the evidence produced on behalf of Ram Bharosey, and also examined the accused persons He then wrote out a detailed order in which he discussed all the evidence and came to the following conclusion: I am not at all prepared to believe the version of the complainant and it will be a clear waste of public money and time to send up such a rotten case to the Court of session, and under such circumstances I have no option but to discharge the accused as this is not a fit case to be committed to the Court of Session Under Section 395, IPC." Ram Bharosey went up in Revision to the Third Addl. Sessions Judge of Etawah, contending that the learned Magistrate's order was "a clear instance of what is called a perverse judgment in the eye of law." The learned Judge proceeded to examine this contention by considering a large number of rulings. Unfortunately he did not study the body of the judgments in order to see what the facts of each case were; instead he got his law from the headnotes in the Law Reports. As a result he came to the conclusion that the learned Magistrate had usurped the functions of the Sessions Court and had wrongly examined the evidence in detail. The learned Judge then made a cursory review of the evidence, and holding that "there is a possibility of its (i.e., the prosecution evidence) being believed," reversed the Magistrate's order of discharge and directed him to commit all the accused persons to the Court of Sessions for offences Under Section 395 and 342, IPC. It is worthy of note that nowhere in his judgment did he hold that in his opinion a prima facie case had been made out. Incidentally, in examining the evidence he did notice several doubtful features about the prosecution case, but in each case decided to give the benefit of the doubt to the prosecution.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the learned Judge's order for commitment S. I. Munshi Lal has approached this Court for redress. The relevant powers of the Magistrate are found given in S. 209 and 210, Code of Criminal Procedure wherein it is provided that after taking the necessary evidence and (if necessary) examining the accused, if he is satisfied that there are "sufficient grounds for committing the accused for trial" he shall frame a charge, but he shall "if he finds that there are not sufficient grounds for committing the accused person for trial, record his reasons and discharge him." For committing the accused person to the Court of Session the Magistrate must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case against him, that is to say, a case in which the evidence is such that if unrebuted it should reasonably lead to a conviction. There is no finding by the Sessions Judge that the present case is of this description. Then, the very fact that for discharging the accused it is mandatory for the Magistrate to record his reasons and it is well settled that the reasons must be sufficient to enable the superior Court to know whether or not he has applied his mind to the subject implies that he must make an adequate examination of the evidence on the record. No doubt the learned Sessions Judge took a good deal of trouble in consulting reported cases. But where he failed was in studying the facts on which those decisions were based: had he examined the facts he would have realised that the Magistrate is not only entitled to, but ought to, examine the evidence with due care in order to decide whether or not the accused should be committed for trial.
(3.) IT would be well for Sessions Judges to bear in mind that a sessions trial involves much expenditure of public time and money, so that they must be jealous in guarding both: it is contrary to the public interest to hold a sessions trial which is bound to result in acquittal.;