K.S.Tiwana, J. - (1.) SHRI V.K. Jain Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide orders dated 17th of September, 1976, has submitted this reference under section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing of the commitment of the accused made by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of a complaint filed by one Randhir Singh, resident of Urlana Kalan, District Karnal.
(2.) THE facts leading to the reference are that on 7th of February, 1976, at 6.30 P.M. Lakhvir Singh of village Urlana Kalan made a report under section 307/34, Indian Penal Code, against Nishan Singh, Kapur Singh, Ranga Singh and Kala Singh of the same village, After investigation the police laid a charge -sheet against Nishan Singh, Kapur Singh and Ranga Singh. As the investigating agency did not feel satisfied about the complicity of Kala Singh in the commission of the offence, he was shown in column No. 2 of the report submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred as the Code The complainant party did not feel satisfied with the conduct of the investigation in not sending up Kala Singh for trial. Randhir Singh then filed a complaint on 24th of April, 1976 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat against all the four above mentioned accused for the same offence. A prayer was made in the complaint that as Nishan Singh, Kapur Singh and Ranga Singh had already been prosecuted by the police, the Court may not summon them as accused and should commit only Kala Singh to trial. After recording the evidence of four witnesses, the learned Magistrate vide his orders dated 7th of May, 1976, summoned Kala Singh as accused and after complying with the provisions of section 208 of the Code committed him for trial to the court of Session.
(3.) BEFORE the commencement of the trial, certain objections were raised on behalf of the accused' The learned Additional Sessions Judge felt difficulty in deciding those and formulated the following questions : - - 1. Is the Magistrate not bound to call upon the complainant to produce all the witnesses and is he not bound to examine them on oath before summoning the accused on the basis of a complaint which discloses the commission of an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session or which discloses the commission of such offence which are not exclusively triable by the Court of session. 2. If the answer to the above questions is in the affirmative whether the order of the magistrate summoning the accused for an offence exclusively triable by the court of session and the order of commitment based upon that order of summoning is not illegal because of the fact that the Magistrate has not examined all the witnesses. 3. Whether in a case cognizance of which has been taken on the basis of a complaint by a private party the magistrate is bound to supply to the accused copies of statements recorded by the police under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code even though the person who alone has been summoned on the basis of private complaint was shown in column of discharge by the police, but the police had filed a chalan against the remaining accused, as enjoined by section 200 (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and 4. If the answer to question No. 3 is in the affirmative whether the order of commitment is illegal if the accused is committed without giving him copies of the statements referred to in question No. 3. and has made a reference to this court for decision.;