UMA CHATTERJEE AND ANR. Vs. SMT. PRATIVA MUKHERJEE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions Nos. 89 of 1961 and 93 of 1961 are analogous and they are jointly heard and a single judgment covers both of them. One Prativa Mukherjee filed a complaint in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Shillong stating that she left her minor daughter Sunanda Mukherjee and her minor son Topan Mukherjee In the house of one S. K. Mukherjee at Shillong under his guardianship and charitable help to enable the children to prosecute their studies. The accused Uma Chatterjee used to live in that house and serve S. K. Mukherjee who was a widower. S. K. Mukherjee died sometime ago and the above children continued to live with accused Uma Chatterjee, The complainant further alleged that after the death of S. K. Mukherjee, Uma Chatterjee started leading an immoral life and ultimately the accused Ranadhir Bisarad came and lived with her in the same house, Gradually the two accused allured the minor girl Sunanda into immoral lite and accused No. 2 Ranadhir committed rape on her on several occasions and accused No. 1 Uma Chatterjee abetted the offence. On the above facts warrant was issued against the accused persons and an enquiry was made. The girl was medically examined on 23 -6 -1960 and evidence was recorded by the Magistrate but the accused were discharged.

(2.) UNDER Section 208, Criminal procedure Code, in complaint case the magistrate is to hear the complainant , and take all such evidence as may be produced by the prosecution or by the accused. The magistrate may discharge the accused Under Section 209 if he finds that there are not sufficient grounds for committing him. Section 210 authorises the magistrate to frame a charge if he is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for committing the accused for trial. Under Section 211, the accused has to give a list of his witnesses, if any, and Section 212 authorises the magistrate to summon and examine any of these witnesses. Then Under Section 213 the magistrate may either commit the accused for trial or cancel the charge and discharge the accused if he is satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for committing him. Section 215 lays, down that a commitment once made Under Section 213 can he quashed by the High Court only and only on a point o law. Section 437 authorises the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate to order a commitment if he considers that the accused has been improperly discharged.

(3.) DR . Medhi, appearing on behalf of the complainant opposite parties, argues that although the Sessions Judge ordered the magistrate Under Section 437 to commit the accused, the commitment could be made by the magistrate only Under Section 213 and as such it can be quashed only Under Section 215 by the High Court on a point of law. We are, however, unable to accept this argument. It is clear from the language of Section 215 itself that the limitation imposed by the said Section does not in terms apply to a commitment made Under Section 437. A commitment Under Section 437 can be dealt with by the High Court under its revisional powers and a High Court in such a case case consider the facts as well as questions of law involved. This view gets support from a series of decisions of various High Courts and in this connection reference may be made to Rash Behari Lai Mandal v. Emperor, : 12 CWN 117, Pirthi Chand Lai v. Sampatia : 7 CWN 327, In re, Damappa Palai, A.I.R. 1914 Mad 424. Dr. Medhi has not been able to cite a single authority in support of his contention that even when a magistrate commits an accused under direction of the Sessions Judge, he acts Under Section 213. In the present case there can be no bar for this Court to exercise I its revisional jurisdiction and it can go even into questions I of fact to see if the order of the Additional Sessions Judge is correct and proper.