Skip to content


Abdul Majid and ors. Vs. the State (Delhi Administration) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1978CriLJ239
AppellantAbdul Majid and ors.
RespondentThe State (Delhi Administration)
Cases ReferredP. C. Lingaiah v. State
Excerpt:
- .....material to proceed against them. both these petitioners were accordingly summoned by the learned trial judge and charge-sheet was also later framed against them. when after the charge, evidence was being recorded afresh, the newly added accused i.e. the present petitioners, made an application to the trial court that the proceedings against them could not be continued, as they had not been committed to sessions, but had been illegally summoned. they accordingly prayed for their discharge. the said application was dismissed by shri goel with the observation that section 193 of the cr.pc 1973 is controlled by the general provisions embodied in section 319 of the said code.2. both abdul majid and jagan lai goel, the newly added accused, have come to this court under section 482 of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

F.S. Gill, J.

1. Mohinder Kumar alias Mohinder Pal. Mool Chand and Jeet Ram alias Jeeta were committed to Sessions for trial Under Sections 304/326/323/34 of the I.P.C. When the trial was being held by Shri S. R. Joel, learned Additional Sessions Judge, and some prose caution evidence had been recorded, it was found by him that Jagan Lai Goel and Abdul Majid (the present petitioners) were also liable to be prosecuted qua the same offences as there was sufficient material to proceed against them. Both these petitioners were accordingly summoned by the learned trial Judge and charge-sheet was also later framed against them. When after the charge, evidence was being recorded afresh, the newly added accused i.e. the present petitioners, made an application to the trial court that the proceedings against them could not be continued, as they had not been committed to Sessions, but had been illegally summoned. They accordingly prayed for their discharge. The said application was dismissed by Shri Goel with the observation that Section 193 of the Cr.PC 1973 is controlled by the general provisions embodied in Section 319 of the said Code.

2. Both Abdul Majid and Jagan Lai Goel, the newly added accused, have come to this Court Under Section 482 of the Code for the quashing of the proceedings qua them.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Court below has misdirected itself by holding that Section 103 is subject to the provisions contained in Section 319 of the Code. Both the sections are reproduced below:-

S. 193, Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code.

S. 319(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

Section 319 relates to the general powers of a Court to add an accused person during the proceedings if it was considered that that person had committed an offence. This provision applies to cases where cognizance is taken directly. There may be cases triable by Special Judges where cognizance is taken direct. There is, however, an express prohibition contained in Section 193 that no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it toy a Magistrate under the Code. This provision is not subject to any other express or implied provision in the Code.

4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on P. C. Lingaiah v. State 1077 Cri. L. J 415 . In this case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court took the view that Section 193 is not controlled by Section 319 of the Code. i.. a Sessions Judge cannot take cognizance of a case unless the same is committed to him. I am in full agreement with the view and reasoning of Jayachandra Reddy, J. Shri Tikku, learned counsel for the State, has not been able to put forth any argument to place a different interpretation to the unambiguous provisions contained in Sections 193 and 319 of the Code. They admit of no other meaning. For these reasons, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge for summoning the petitioners, without commitment, cannot be sustained.

5. I accordingly accept this petition and quash the proceedings against Abdul Majid and Jagan Lai Goel, petitioners. The case should, however, proceed against the other accused.

6. Shri Tikku, learned counsel for the State, has submitted that in case it is decided to proceed against the present petitioners by filing a supplementary challan in the Court of a Magistrate, the present order should not stand in the way. There is force in submission. I accordingly observe that the present order shall be without prejudice to any other proceedings which might N1 1 p.ken against the petitioners in accordance with law.

7. Crl. Misc. (Main) 183 of 1977 is thus disposed of in the above terms.

8. The record of the case be sent back to the trial court at an early date.


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