Skip to content


Shyamkant Wamanrao Pawar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSpl. Criminal Apple. No. 1346 of 1979
Judge
Reported in1980CriLJ1388
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34 and 436; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 161, 162, 202(2) and 208
AppellantShyamkant Wamanrao Pawar and Others
RespondentState of Maharashtra and Others
Excerpt:
.....individual as arbitrator had become infructuous because of his demise held, high court of bombay, is not correct in rejecting arbitration petition filed by appellant on ground of lack of jurisdiction. - 3. on the other hand shri kamat, the learned public prosecutor as well as shri pradhan the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant contended before us that after examining 3 witnesses as the judicial magistrate was satisfied that prima facie case was made out, he thought that it was not necessary to examine other witnesses though the complainant wanted to examine them even at that stage. the order passed by the judicial magistrate, first class, satara, dated 8th january, 1979 as well as 13th july, 1979 of issuing process and committing the case to the sessions court..........appears from the record that after the complainant and 2 other witnesses were examined, the learned judicial magistrate, first class, vide his order dated 8th january, 1979 directed issuing of processes against all the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. ultimately by an order dated 13th july, 1979 the case was committed to the court of session against all the accused persons as offence punishable under section 436 of the indian penal code was exclusively triable by the sessions court. when the trial at the sessions court was likely to commence. accused persons filed an application before the additional sessions judge, nasik that at that stage the prosecution cannot be permitted to examine witnesses who are not examined before the committal court. it appears that a list of.....
Judgment:

Dharmadhikari, J.

1. From the records it appears that Respondent No. 3 Govinda Bhika Mankar had filed a private complaint against the Petitioners and some others under sections 436, 342, 382, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It further appears from the record that after the Complainant and 2 other witnesses were examined, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, vide his order dated 8th January, 1979 directed issuing of processes against all the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. Ultimately by an order dated 13th July, 1979 the case was committed to the Court of Session against all the accused persons as offence punishable under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. When the trial at the Sessions Court was likely to commence. Accused persons filed an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik that at that stage the prosecution cannot be permitted to examine witnesses who are not examined before the committal Court. It appears that a list of 12 witnesses was submitted by the Complainant before the Committal Court itself. It was contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the Accused that in view of the provisions of Section 202(2) proviso, it is not now open to the Complainant or the Prosecution to examine witnesses who are not examined at the committal stage. The said application filed by the accused persons was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 14th November, 1979 and it is the said order which is challenged in this Criminal Application.

2. Shri Agrawal, the learned Counsel appearing for the Accused contended before us that if the provisions of Section 202(2) proviso are read with Section 208 and other relevant provisions of the Act, it is quite obvious that the said provisions are mandatory. Therefore according to the learned Counsel it will have to be presumed that the process was issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class after calling upon the Complainant to produce all his witnesses and then examining them on oath. Therefore the witnesses who are examined at the committal stage are the only witnesses which the Complainant wanted to examine and that being the position, it is not now open to the Complainant or the Prosecution to examine any other witnesses. In support of its contention that the provisions of Section 202(2) proviso are mandatory, Shri Agarwal was relying upon the decision of this court in 1975 Mah LJ 17 i.e. Spl. Civil Apple. No. 1535 of 1974 and Spl. Civil Apple No. 1536 of 1974 Laxmanlal Govindlal Dalwala v. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khamgaon, decided on 7th January 1975 to which one of us (Mr. Dharmadhikari, J.) was a party. Shri Agarwal was also relying upon other decisions of various High Courts. However in our opinion, it is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the said decisions.

3. On the other hand Shri Kamat, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as Shri Pradhan the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Complainant contended before us that after examining 3 witnesses as the Judicial Magistrate was satisfied that prima facie case was made out, he thought that it was not necessary to examine other witnesses though the Complainant wanted to examine them even at that stage. At no stage it was the case of the Complainant that he wanted to examine only 3 witnesses. On the other hand for properly proving his case the Complainant wants to examine other witnesses cited by him and hence it cannot be said that the Complainant had given up other witnesses at the committal stage itself. It was also contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent that in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this court, they have no objection if the very order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, issuing process and committing the case to Sessions Court, is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Judicial Magistrate First Class for recording further evidence even before issuing the process and then decided the matter in accordance with law.

4. In the aforesaid decision i.e. Laxmanlal v. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khamgaon, Satara the Division Bench of this Court has taken a view that the proviso to Section 202(2) makes it obligatory on the Magistrate in the case of offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session that he must call upon the Complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. Section 202(2) proviso is introduced for the first time in the new Code of Criminal Procedure and it applies to a case which is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, and when the prosecution is instituted on the basis of private complaint. In case of private case, obviously there being no earlier investigation by the police, the statement of witnesses under sections 161 and/or 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not available. Therefore it appears that in its wisdom Legislature has made this wholesome provision. That said provision is mandatory is further clear from the provision of Section 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore having regard to these various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure this court took the view in Laxmanlal v. Judicial Magistrate, First Class that it was obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to call upon the Complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath and if this is not done, then obviously the order passed issuing the process is patently in violation of the mandatory requirements of the proviso to Section 202(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In this view of the matter, we have no other alternative but to quash the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class dated 8th January, 1979 issuing the process itself.

5. As a necessary consequence of this the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Satara dated 13th July, 1979 committing the case to the Sessions Court will also stand quashed because if the earlier order of issuing process itself is quashed then the subsequent (order) cannot stand on its own footing.

6. In the result, therefore, the Criminal Application is allowed. Rule is made absolute. The order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Satara, dated 8th January, 1979 as well as 13th July, 1979 of issuing process and committing the case to the Sessions Court respectively are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Satara for deciding it afresh in accordance with law. It is needless to say that in view of the provisions of Section 202(2) proviso the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class shall call upon the Complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath and then pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

7. Petition allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //