1961 (7) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d before the trying Magistrate by one Bhaskar Shankar, the eleven opponents were tried for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 147, 455, 341 and 440 of the Indian Penal Code. It was the complainant's case that one Subhash was the tenant of the house in dispute. He died on March 23, 1960. Since there were no known heirs or relations of the deceased, the police took possession of his property which was lying unclaimed in the house and thereafter the said Bhaskar Shankar took the house on rent from June 1, 1960. The name of the owner of the house is not known and he has not been examined, but his Gumastha Ramakrishna has given evidence that the house was given on rent to the complainant Bhaskar Shankar. According to the complainant, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the individual sections under which the offences were alleged to have been committed by the opponents to show that the view which the Magistrate took was somewhat unnecessarily serious and that the offences were not as grave as they were made out to be. In doing so, the learned Sessions Judge has expressed his view upon the evidence recorded before the Magistrate which might have been avoided. Apart from this, the Sessions Judge has held: It seems to me, therefore, that there is nothing very grave and serious about the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused persons so as to hold that the case ought to be tried by the Sessions Court. In this conclusion the Sessions Judge may perhaps be right-I do not say that h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ground for satisfaction. I shall presently show that this interpretation is supported by other provisions of the Code itself. Therefore, the question that arises in this reference is whether it can possibly be said upon evidence of the six witnesses whom the Magistrate examined and upon the view which he has expressed that it did not "appear" to him that the case should be committed to the Court of Session. This is not a case where a Magistrate could never form an opinion that the case ought to be committed to a Court of Session. That he took a more serious view of the matter than he ought to have taken of the case is not a ground for interference. 6. Apart from this, the Magistrate in making the committal order expressly purported to ac....