- (1.) This reference is by the learned Sea. J., pointing out that, two cases have been unnecessarily sent up to his Ct. for trial. The 1st case is against Ram Piari and Kishenlal u/Ss. 328/109, I. P. C. The second case is against Jetha Das u/S. 366, I. P. C. On receiving police papers the learned Mag. sent up both the cases to the learned Ses. J., for trial under the provisions of S. 38, East Punjab Public Safety Act. The learned Ses. J., has made this reference pointing out that, the two cases could be disposed of by a Mag. empowered u/S. 30, Cr. P. C.
(2.) Notices were issued to the accused in the two cases and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel appearing for Kishenlal in on case and for Jetha Das in the Second case and the learned Public Prosecutor have no objection if the cases are decided by a Mag. empowered u/S. 30, Cr. P. C. I understand Mst. Piari is in jail. Notice issued to her has not yet been returned; but I have no reason to suppose that, she will have any serious objection to the trial of her case by a Mag.
(3.) The point raised by the learned Ses. J., came before this Court in Criminal Reference No. 15 of 1950. It was observed in that case : "This however does not mean that, a case that could be tried by a Mag. invested with powers u/S. 30 Cr. P. C. must necessarily be sent for disposal to the Court of Sessions. S. 30, Cr. P. C. in no way stands repealed by the East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949 . Magistrates in the State of Ajmer accordingly are to note that only such cases are to be sent u/S. 38, East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949 to the Court of Session that could not be tried and adequate punishment meted out by Magistrates invested with powers u/S. 30, Cr. P. C." These directions were ignored by the learned Mag. who sent up the present cases to the Court of Session. The learned Mag. has sent an explanation to the effect that, he was unaware of the directions contained in the previous judgment of this Ct. and the point was not brought to his notice by the prosecuting staff.;