Skip to content


The Sessions Judge Vs. Murappa Goundan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1918)ILR41Mad982
AppellantThe Sessions Judge
RespondentMurappa Goundan
Cases ReferredKrishna Reddi v. Subbamma I.L.R.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 436 - indian penal code (act xlv of 1860), sections 323, 354, 376, 511--subordinate magistrate taking cognizance on police charge-shed--no mention of offence under sections 376, 511, indian penal code--prosecution not pressing for committal before magistrate--order by district magistrate directing committal--validity of order--reference by sessions judge--quashing of commitment by high court--jurisdiction of district magistrate. - .....goes only to this extent that where the prosecution had pressed for the framing of a charge of a higher offence triable by the sessions court, even if the subordinate magistrate had originally taken cognizance only of a charge relating to a lesser offence, the refusal of the magistrate to frame the charge for the higher offence might be treated as an order of discharge in respect of that offence and that section 436 of the criminal procedure code would, in those circumstances, give the district magistrate jurisdiction to direct the subordinate magistrate to commit the accused to the sessions on the graver charge.2. in the present case, the offence of attempt at rape was not mentioned in the police charge-sheet on which the subordinate magistrate took cognizance of the case and the.....
Judgment:

Sadasiva Ayyar, J.

1. The decision in Krishna Reddi v. subbamma I.L.R. (1901)Mad. 136 goes only to this extent that where the prosecution had pressed for the framing of a charge of a higher offence triable by the Sessions Court, even if the Subordinate Magistrate had originally taken cognizance only of a charge relating to a lesser offence, the refusal of the Magistrate to frame the charge for the higher offence might be treated as an order of discharge in respect of that offence and that Section 436 of the Criminal Procedure Code would, in those circumstances, give the District Magistrate jurisdiction to direct the Subordinate Magistrate to commit the accused to the Sessions on the graver charge.

2. In the present case, the offence of attempt at rape was not mentioned in the police charge-sheet on which the Subordinate Magistrate took cognizance of the case and the prosecution did not press for the framing by that Magistrate of a charge against the accused in respect of that offence.

3. The Sessions Judge was, therefore, justified in holding that the decision in Krishna Reddi v. Subbamma I.L.R. (1901) Mad. 136 could not be extended so as to cover this case and we accordingly accept the Reference. Quashing the commitment, we direct the Subordinate Magistrate of Mettupalaiyam to proceed with the trial of the charges for the minor offences framed by him against the accused.


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