S.Malik, J. - (1.) -A complaint was filed against the applicants by Ram Shanker Tewari on 2-5-1-1970 in the Court of Additional District Magistrate (J), Ghazipur u/Section 420, 454, 466, 46/ and 468 read with Section i 09 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants were summoned by the Additional District Magistrate (J), Ghazipur u/Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was thereafter transferred to the court of Munsif Magistrate on 25-2-1976. An opportunity to produce further evidence was given to Ram Shanker Tewari, complainant u/Section 452 of the Criminal Procedure Code. But no further evidence was produced by him. The learned Munsif-Magistrate, thereafter, discussed the evidence of the two witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant and came to the conclusion that no case was made out against the applicant and discharged them by his order dated 28-9-1976. Two revisions were, thereafter, filed by Ram Shanker Tewari before the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur and the learned Judge by his order dated 10-1-1977 set aside the order of the learned Munsif-Magistrate, dated 28-9- 1976 and directed the applicants to be committed to the court of Sessions to stand their trial under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants have filed these two revisions against the aforesaid order of the learned Sessions Judge, Ghazipur. They were heard by Hon'ble P. N. Bakshi, J. who came to the conclusion that as the offence under Sections 420,467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code was triable by the court of the Magistrate under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the new Code) the case against the applicants could not be committed to the court of Sessions under Sec. 209 of the new Code, but was triable by the magistrate. He, however, referred both the revisions to a Division Bench as in his opinion a contrary view was taken by this court in Babu Ram v. Mohammad Ali, reported in 1977 A.Cr.R. 49. We have, however, gone through the said case. But we are of the opinion that a contrary view has not been taken by this court in the said case.
(2.) OFFENCES under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code were exclusively triable by the court of Sessions under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the old Code). An enquiry under Chapter XVIII of the old Code was pending against the applicant in the court of the learned Magistrate when the new Code came into force on 1-4-1974. The proviso to subsection (a) of Section 484 (2) of the new Code runs as follows : "Provided that every inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the old Code, which Is pending at the commencement of this Code, shall be dealt with and disposed off in accordance with the provisions of this Code." It is clear from a plain reading of the said proviso that an inquiry, which was pending under Chapter XVIII of the old Code, when the new Code came into force, is required to be dealt with and disposed off in accordance with the provisions of the new Code. As offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code are not triable by the court of Sessions under the new Code but are triable by a Magistrate of the first class it is obvious that the case against the applicants could not be committed to the court of Sessions under Section 209 of the new Code, but had to be tried as a warrant case under Chapter XIX of the new Code. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, fully justified in discharging the applicants under Section 245 of the new Code as he came to the conclusion that Sessions Judge was, thus, in error in allowing the revisions sand directing that the case against the applicants be committed to the court of Sessions for trial under Sections 420, 467 sand 468 of the Indian Penal Code. In the result both these revisions are allowed and the order of the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur, dated 10-1-1977 is set aside. Revisions allowed.;