Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 972 (MP)

Hazari v. State of M. P.

2000-09-05

A.K.GOHIL

body2000
This is a revision against the order dated 21.8.1997 passed by the learned A.S.J. Rajgarh (Biaora) in S.T. No. 80/97 whereby taken the cognizance against all the accused persons u/s 193. The submission of Shri Vivek Singh L/c is that the committal Court by order dated 15.4.1997 only committed the case against Gopal S/o Bhagirath and Jagdish S/o Bhagirath for the offence u/Ss. 452, 307, 294, 147, 148, 149, therefore, the A.S.J. cannot take cognizance against all the accused persons. In reply the submission of Shri Salim, learned Panel Lawyer for State is that u/s 209 Cr.P.C. committal Court is not empowered to commit the case only against few accused persons leaving the rest of the accused persons. After hearing learned counsel for parties and considering the material available in the case diary, from the charges it appears that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions and u/s 209 the Magistrate is not having powers to make any elaborate enquiry. The Magistrate has no power to consider the veracity of the allegations as the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The Magistrate is also not required to balance and weigh the evidence as a trial Court. If material and facts are available on record and the case diary remains unrebutted the accused persons should be committed to Sessions Court. He is not required to hold enquiry to satisfy whether a prima facie case is disclosed. Sub-section (1) of Section 209 clearly provides that when any case instituted on a police report, the accused person appears or brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, he shall commit after complying with the provisions of Section 207 or Section 208 as the case may be subject to the provisions of this Code relating the bail and remand. In view of the aforesaid provisions he order passed by the learned ASJ, Rajgarh for taking cognizance against all the accused persons against whom charge sheet has been filed appears to be legal and justified and accused persons cannot challenge the said order on the ground that the committal Court has not committed the case against them. Once case is committed to the Sessions Court, the Sessions Court having complete jurisdiction of the Court of original jurisdiction to take cognizance in the matter. Once case is committed to the Sessions Court, the Sessions Court having complete jurisdiction of the Court of original jurisdiction to take cognizance in the matter. This view stands concluded by the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Nisar and another v. State of U.P. (1995) 2 SCC 23 :- "Thus, on a plain reading of Section 193, as it presently stands once the case is committed to the Court of Session by a Magistrate under the Code, the restriction placed on the power of the Court of Session to take cognizance of an offence as a Court of original jurisdiction gets lifted. On the Magistrate committing the case u/s 209 to the Court of Session the bar of Section 193 is lifted thereby investing the Court of Session complete and unfettered jurisdiction of the Court of original jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence which would include the summoning of the person or persons whose complicity in the commission of the crime can prima facie be gathered from the material available on record." In view of the above, no case is made out for interference in this revision by this Court. Accordingly the revision is dismissed. The applicants shall appear before the trial Court on 30.10.2000 and the trial Court shall proceed with the sessions trial in accordance with law.