1981 (12) TMI 182 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order of discharge by the Magistrate.
2. Whether the Sessions Judge's order quashing the discharge was justified.
3. Interpretation of Sections 202, 204, 209, 244, 245, 323, and 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
4. Distinction between discharge and acquittal.
5. Role of the Magistrate in cases triable exclusively by the Court of Session.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order of Discharge by the Magistrate:
The revisionists contended that the discharge order passed by the Munsif Magistrate was valid under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. as the Magistrate was competent to try the case as a warrant case. They argued that the Magistrate had properly recorded evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. and that there was no occasion for committal to the Court of Session. However, the court found that the Magistrate had no power to discharge the accused if the evidence disclosed an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The Magistrate's order was beyond his jurisdiction and usurped the jurisdiction of the Court of Session.

2. Whether the Sessions Judge's Order Quashing the Discharge was Justified:
The Sessions Judge's order quashing the discharge was challenged on the grounds that it undid the effect of an earlier order by a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. The court, however, held that the order of the Sessions Judge was revisable and that the Sessions Judge was within his rights to quash the discharge order. The Sessions Judge's decision was based on the assessment of evidence which indicated that the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Session.

3. Interpretation of Relevant Sections of Cr.P.C.:
- Section 202(2): The Magistrate must record evidence of all witnesses in cases triable exclusively by the Court of Session.
- Section 204: The Magistrate has to form an opinion on whether there is a prima facie case against the accused while issuing process.
- Section 209: The Magistrate is required to commit the case to the Court of Session if it is exclusively triable by that court, without conducting an inquiry or verifying facts.
- Section 244 and 245(2): These sections pertain to the recording of evidence and discharge of the accused in warrant cases.
- Section 323: Allows the Magistrate to commit the case to the Court of Session at any stage of the proceedings if it appears that the case should be tried by the Court of Session.
- Section 378: Deals with appeals in cases of acquittals, not discharges. The distinction between discharge and acquittal is crucial as discharge does not bar retrial, unlike acquittal.

4. Distinction Between Discharge and Acquittal:
The court emphasized the well-established distinction between discharge and acquittal. Discharge occurs before the framing of charges and does not bar retrial, whereas acquittal occurs after the framing of charges and bars retrial under Section 300 Cr.P.C. The remedy against an order of discharge is revision, not appeal, which was correctly sought in this case.

5. Role of the Magistrate in Cases Triable Exclusively by the Court of Session:
The court clarified that the Magistrate's role in such cases is limited. The Magistrate must commit the case to the Court of Session without conducting an in-depth inquiry or verifying facts, as per Section 209 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate's function is to ascertain whether the case, as disclosed by the police report, is triable exclusively by the Court of Session. The Magistrate's power to discharge the accused in such cases has been eliminated under the new Code.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Sessions Judge's order quashing the discharge and directed the Magistrate to proceed in accordance with the law. The revision was dismissed as devoid of force, and the stay order was vacated. The case was sent back to the concerned court for quick dispatch.