B C CHENNA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Simhadripuram filed a charge sheet against twelve accused for offences punishable under Ss. 147, 148, 324, 326,367 and 149 I.P.C. in the Court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Pulivendia. The latter took it on the fileas P.R.C. No. 5 of 1961, framed charges under Ss. 147, 324,325,326, read with 149 367 against A. 1, A. 3, A.4,A.6, A.9, A.10, and A.11and under S. 148, 324, 325, 326,read with 149 and 367 against A-2, A-5, A-8 and A-12 and committed them to take their trial in the Court of Sessions Cuddapah Division. Thereupon, the twelve accused felt aggrieved with that order and filed this petition under S. 561-A Cr. P. C. to quash the order of committal.

(2.) In the present case, the charge under S. 367 I.P.C. against the accused is that they dragged the complainant from one place to another so that he may be subjected to grievous hurt. It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused caused grievous hurt which is the subject of charges under Ss. 325 and 326 I. P. C. It is beyond doubt or dispute that, of all charge which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session is the charge under S. 367 I.P.C. and that all the other charges including the charges under Ss. 325 and 326 J.P.C. are triable by a Frist Class Magistrate.

(3.) The contention of Sri A Bhujangarao for the petitioners is that in view of the fact that the accused are alleged to have committed offences under Ss. 325 and 326 I.P.C. none of them can be charged with an offence under S. 367 I.P.C. The reason he urges is that S. 367 I.P.C. is only an offence of being kidnapped or abducted for the purpose of causing grievous hurt so far as this case is concerned and that grievous hurt has actually been caused according to the prosecution. Section 367 I.P.C. runs thus: