State vs Jagrup Singh and Another

Shamsher Bahadur, J.—Jagrup, Deva and Shera were committed to the Court of Session for trial u/s 392, Indian. Penal Code by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sunam on 4th August 1965.

According to the prosecution, one Ram Nath was returning from Lehra Mandi for going to his village Ghoranab. He had with him a gold Kantha placed in a bag. Jagrup and Deva engaged Ram Nath in conversation and were later joined by the third accused Shera. While Ram Nath had gone to drink water, Jagrup picked up the bag and when Ram Nath asked him to return it, he was inflicted injuries by the accused persons. Holding that there was a prime facie case of robbery against the three accused persons, the Committing Magistrate made an order for its trial by the Court of Session, Sangrur.

The offence u/s 392, Indian Penal Code, is trouble both by the Court of Session and the Magistrate, 1st Class. In case where the jurisdiction is concurrent, the Magistrate has to record an order under the provisions of Section 347 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for committing the case to the Court of Session. No reasons have been adduced and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, in his order of 11th October, 1965; has recommended that the commitment order should be set aside on this score.

Under Sub-section (1) of Section 347 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

If in any inquiry before a Magistrate it appears to him at any stage of the proceedings that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session or High Court, and if he is empowered to commit for trial he shall commit the accused under the provisions hereinbefore contained.

In al Allahabad case, Desai, J., in K.S.V.R. Nigam v. State ILR 1955 (II) All. 1 made the following observation at page 7:

The offences are undoubtedly serious. One of Section 409 being punishable with transportation for life or imprisonment for ten years and the other being punishable with imprisonment for three years. I consider that the mere failure to give reasons for the commitment in the order is not a ground for quashing the commitment u/s 215, if a valid reason for the commitment can be gathered or implied from the facts of the case.

Now the present case is one of robbery and u/s 392, Indian Penal Code, the punishment for the offence extends up to fourteen years. If eventually, the prosecution ends in a lesser sentence, it is no ground to say that the Magistrate himself could have tried the case. The Sessions Judge, in my opinion, is clearly in error in thinking that the failure to record reasons invalidates the commitment order. As expressly stated by Desai, J. in Nigam's case, the reasons may be gathered or implied from the facts of the case. Theft was accompanied by the use of force and I think the gravity of the offence is a sufficient reason by itself to uphold the validity of a commitment order. It may be observed in passing that the point was taken up by the learned Sessions Judge suo motit.

In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to accept the recommendation and would send back the case to the. learned Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law.