Gurnam Singh, J.
1. Mewa Singh alias Manjit Singh was committed to the Court of Session by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Malerkotla, to stand his trial under Sections 409, 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code, vide his order dated 26-12-1973, with a direction to him to appear before the learned Sessions Judge on 15-1-1974. The accused appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 15-1-1974 and the case was adjourned to 23-1-1974. The case remained pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge but he, on 21-9-1974, sent the record of the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, along with the charge and the evidence already recorded by him, under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 (hereinafter called the new Code). The accused was directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, on 7-10-1974, for trial.
2. The State of Punjab has filed this revision petition No, 86 of 1975 against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 21-9-1974. The counsel for the State and the accused person have been heard.
3. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the State is that as the case had been committed to the Court of Session before the Code of 1973 came into force, the trial will be held in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 (hereinafter called the old Code) as provided under Section 484 of the new Code. He further urged that since the case was not committed under Section 209 of the new Code, the provisions of Section 228 of the new Code will not apply to it.
4. Mewa Singh alias Manjit Singh accused simply requested that the revision may be decided according to law.
5. From the perusal of the case file, which has been received from the office of the Advocate General, Punjab it is evident that the case was committed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Malerkotla, on 26-12-1973 and the file was put up before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, on 15-1-1974 and on that date the accused also appeared before him and the case was ordered to be registered. The trial of the case was fixed for 4th, 6th and 7th May, 1974. The trial in the case, however, commenced on 23-8-1974 and two P.Ws. were examined. Some of the prosecution witnesses were examined on 29th and 30th of August, 1974 and the case was adjourned to 16-9-1974. The learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the impugned order on 21-9-1974.
6. As the case had been committed before the new Code came into force, the provisions of Section 228 of the new Code cannot apply to this case. It is not disputed that the trial of the case had not commenced in terms of S. 271 of the old Code prior to the coming into force of the new Code.
7. The next point to be seen is as to whether the trial was pending on the date the new Code came into force. If it is held that the trial was pending, the old Code would apply and the trial would proceed in accordance with the provisions of the old Code as provided under Section 484 of the new Code. Proviso attached to Section 484(2) of the new Code prescribes, that an enquiry under Chapter XVIII of the old Code which is pending at the commencement of the new Code shall be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the new Code. This proviso gives an indication that all pending appeals, applications, trials, enquiries or investigations shall proceed under the old Code except the enquiries under Chapter XVIII of the old Code, The word 'trial' has not been defined in the old as well as the new Code. It has, therefore, to be determined as to what the words 'trial' and 'pending' mean in Section 484(2)(a) of the new Code in the context in which it appears, keeping in view the purpose of the provision.
8. Under Section 193 of the old Code the Court of Session takes cognizance of an offence as a Court of original jurisdiction when the case is committed to it by a Magistrate duly empowered in that behalf. The trial of a case commences as soon as the Court of Session takes cognizance of the offence in terms of S. 193 of the old Code. In the instant case the learned Additional Sessions Judge took cognizance of the case on 15-1-1974 and thus it became pending in his Court. The trial of the case did not conclude on 1st of April, 1974, when the new Code came into force and therefore, the provisions of Section 484(2)(a) of the new Code will apply to it. In case The State v. Haridas Mundhra, 1974 Cri LJ 1341 (SB) (Cal) the Special Bench consisting of Sankar Prasad Mitra, C. J., Murari Mohan Dutt and A. K. De, JJ.. observed that:-
The expression 'trial pending' in Section 484(2)(a) of the new Code has a wide connotation. It cannot be restricted to 'commencement of trial' within the meaning of Section 271 of the old Code. The trial, in the instant case, became pending in the High Court, when that Court took cognisance of the offences in terms of Section 193 of the old Code. In fact, Sub-section (2) of Section 484 of the new Code along with its proviso lays down clearly what is saved as well as what is not saved in view of the repeal of the Code of 1898.
9. In the above referred case the point referred to was that 'whether the new Code applies to a case in which the order of committal was passed prior to 1st April, 1974 but where the trial had not commenced in terms of Section 271 of the old Code.'
The Hon'ble Judges replied in the negative and held that the trial shall be held according to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898.
10. In the case in hand the committal order was passed prior to the enforcement of the new Code and the evidence of some of the witnesses had been recorded after the new Code came into force. As the learned Additional Sessions Judge had taken cognizance of the case on 15-1-1974, therefore, it is a case of trial pending under Section 484(2)(a) of the new Code and has to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the old Code. This revision petition is, therefore, accepted and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 21-9-1974 is set aside and it is ordered that case be disposed of under the provisions of the old Code. The case file received, be sent back to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sangrur. The Accused has been directed to appear in the Court of Session on 21-4-1975.