UMMADI PULLA REDDI Vs. STATE
LAWS(APH)-1955-2-10
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on February 25,1955

UMMADI PULLA REDDI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

CHINNAWVAMI NADAR V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
MAJJI PAIDANNA AND OTHERS V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
OONNA MUDALI AND OTHERS V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
FAZAL V. THE CROWN [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

GAURI SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1974-8-17] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition to quash the order of committal made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Anantapur, has been referred to a Division Bench by Chandra Reddy, J.
(2.)The facts may be briefly stated. The Station House Officer, Atmakur, filed a charge-sheet against 11 accused alleging that on 3rd January, 1954, at about noon in Sanappa village, the said accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons with the common object of causing hurt to the persons belonging to the opposite faction, and, in pursuance of such common object, caused hurt to Chinna Konda Reddi and 9 others and thereby committed offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 323 and 324, Indian Penal Code, lead with section 149, Indian Penal Code. There was a counter-case P.R.C. No. 2 of 1954 filed by the accused against the victims of the present case. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate took the case on file as Calendar Case No. 41 of 1954 and followed the procedure prescribed for warrant cases. The Magistrate found that the prosecution had failed to make out a prima facie case in respect of any of the offences alleged against accused 1, 4, 6 and 8 to 11 and discharged them under section 209(1), Criminal Procedure Code. But, as regards accused 2, 3, 5 and 7, he framed charges against them under section 323, Indian Penal Code, but committed the said accused to sessions on the following ground :
"As this case has been treated as a counter-case to P.R.C. No. 2 of 1954, I hereby commit the aforesaid accused under section 213(1), Criminal Procedure Code, to take their trial on the charges framed against them before the Court of Session sitting at Anantapur."

(3.)The aforesaid petition was filed for quashing the said order committing the accused to sessions. The question for consideration is whether the said order is illegal and, if not, whether it is improper to pass such an order in the circumstances of the case. The relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, which throw light on the question raised, may now be read :
"Section 207.-The following procedure shall be adopted in inquiries before Magistrates where the case is triable exclusively by a Court of Session or High Court or in the opinion of the Magistrate, ought to be tried by such Court. Section 254.-If, when such evidence and examination have been taken and made, or at any previous stage of the case, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this chapter which such Magistrate is competent to try and which in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. Section 347(1).-If in any enquiry before a Magistrate, or in any trial before a Magistrate, before signing judgment, it appears to him at any stage of the proceeding that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Courrt of Session or High Court, and if he is empowered to commit for trial, he shall commit the accused under the provisions hereinbefore contained. (2) If such Magistrate is not empowered to commit for trial, he shall proceed under section 346."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.