Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 318 (RAJ)

Ram Chander v. State of Rajasthan

2007-02-13

DALIP SINGH

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners in this case were facing trial for the offence under sections 394, 323, 341 and 447 I.P.C. 2. Before the learned Magistrate, an application came to be filed by the learned Public Prosecutor during the pendency of the trial that in the facts and circumstances which have come on record, a case under Section 395 I.P.C. is made out as there were more than five accused persons. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 24.07.2006 has agreed with the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor and in the facts and circumstances finding involvement of more than five accused persons has altered the charges from 394 to 395 I.P.C. Since the offence under Section 395 I.P.C. is one which is triable by the court of Sessions in exercise of powers under Section 323 Cr.PC., the learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioner had been facing trial for a period of more than ten years and when the matter was at the fag-end application moved by the learned Public Prosecutor should have been dismissed as whatever material was available on record and which was considered by the learned Magistrate was already available at the time of framing of the charge. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has contend that in accordance with Section 323 Cr.PC., it is open for the learned Magistrate in a given case during the pendency of the trial if it appears to him even at the stage prior to the signing of the judgment that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Sessions, it is mandatory for him to commit the same for trial by the Sessions Court in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVIII of the Code. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival. submissions. I have also perused the copies of the statements of the witnesses which were produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.Section 323 CrPC. reads as follows- "323. Procedure when, after commencement of inquiry or trial Magistrate finds case should be committed. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival. submissions. I have also perused the copies of the statements of the witnesses which were produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.Section 323 CrPC. reads as follows- "323. Procedure when, after commencement of inquiry or trial Magistrate finds case should be committed. -If, in any inquiry into an offence or a trial before a Magistrate, it appears to him at any stage of the proceedings before signing judgment that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session, he shall commit it to that Court under the provisions hereinbefore contained and thereupon the provision of Chapter XVIII shall apply to the commitment so made." 7. A perusal of the above provision clearly goes to show that if during the course of trial before a Magistrate, if it appears to him that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Sessions, it is provided thereunder that he shall commit the same to the Court of Sessions. 8. In the instant case, admittedly there are more than five accused persons and the allegations as per the statement of PW-1 is there regarding all the five accused persons being involved. In the facts and circumstances, I would not like to go into the merits of the submissions pertaining to the involvement of the accused as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding improvement in the statements and soon as it may prejudicially affect the rights of either of the parties. Suffice it to say that the power under Section 323 Cr.P.C., in the facts and circumstances of the case, have been rightly invoked. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the two judgments of this court in the case of Prabhu v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1987 (1) WLN 208 and Mangi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1990 (1) WLN 682 and contended that the charges at the fag end cannot be allowed to be amended. 10. So far as the above judgments are concerned, suffice it to say that they are not on the scope of Section 323 Cr.PC. 11. In view of the above, I find no good ground to interfere with the order dated 24.07.2006 passed by the learned Magistrate. Consequently, this misc. petition stands dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******