1965 (11) TMI 161 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge under Section 437, Cr.P.C.
2. Applicability of Section 437, Cr.P.C. in the absence of an express order of discharge.
3. Discretionary power of the Sessions Judge under Section 437, Cr.P.C.
4. Timeliness and propriety of the prosecution's application for commitment to the Sessions Court.
5. Locus standi of private parties in criminal proceedings initiated on a police report.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge under Section 437, Cr.P.C.
The main issue was whether the Sessions Judge had the jurisdiction to direct the Magistrate to commit the accused for trial by a Court of Sessions under Section 437, Cr.P.C. The judgment clarifies that the Sessions Judge does have this jurisdiction. The court stated, "The High Court was right in holding that the Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to make an order directing the Magistrate to commit the case for trial by a Court of Sessions."

2. Applicability of Section 437, Cr.P.C. in the absence of an express order of discharge.
The court examined whether the power under Section 437, Cr.P.C. could be exercised in the absence of an express order of discharge. It was held that the power is not limited to cases where an express order of discharge has been made. The judgment noted, "There is nothing in the language of s. 437 from which it could be said that this power is not exercisable during the pendency of a trial before a Magistrate or that this power can be exercised only where the Magistrate has made an express order of discharge."

3. Discretionary power of the Sessions Judge under Section 437, Cr.P.C.
The court emphasized that the discretion under Section 437, Cr.P.C. must be exercised judicially. The judgment stated, "The law gives a discretion to the revising authority and that discretion has to be exercised judicially." The court found that the Sessions Judge and the High Court did not adequately consider whether it was appropriate to order the commitment at such a late stage, especially when the case was closed for judgment.

4. Timeliness and propriety of the prosecution's application for commitment to the Sessions Court.
The court criticized the prosecution for not seeking the commitment at an earlier stage and for making repeated applications. The judgment highlighted, "It would be a terrible harassment to the appellants now to be called upon to face a fresh trial right from the beginning which would certainly be the result if the Magistrate were to commit the appellants for trial by a Court of Sessions now."

5. Locus standi of private parties in criminal proceedings initiated on a police report.
The court noted that the revision application was filed by an informant and not by the prosecution, questioning the locus standi of private parties in such matters. The judgment stated, "In a case which has proceeded on a police report a private party has really no locus standi... the court's jurisdiction was invoked by a private party."

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, and the orders of the Sessions Judge and the High Court were quashed. The court directed that the trials of each of the appellants should proceed before the Magistrate according to law from the stages at which they were on the date on which the stay order became operative. The judgment emphasized the importance of judicial discretion, timely prosecution actions, and the limited role of private parties in criminal proceedings initiated on a police report.