IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3354 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/03/2008 IN CC.499/2006 IN CP.9/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED. ------------------------------------------------- 1. PUTHIYEDATH BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 72 YEARS, PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE, ERAVANNUR AMSOM, KOZHIKODE. 2. K.V.KUTTIKRISHNAN, S/O.RARU, AGED 62 YEARS, AMRUTHALAYAM, PULLALUR, PARANNUR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR SMT.ANITHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS /COMPLAINANT/STATE. ---------------------------------------------- 1. RAVEENDRAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, AGED 48 YEARS, URADATHIL HOUSE, PULLALUR, PARANNUR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN FOR R1 BY PP SRI C M NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3354 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petition is filed challenging the order of committal passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kozhikode in C.C.499 of 2006. That case arose out of a private complaint filed by first respondent/complainant alleging that petitioners committed offence under Section 324 and 506(ii) read with 34 of IPC. When charge was framed after recording evidence at the pre charge stage, petitioners pleaded not guilty. Complainant examined three witnesses. Petitioners were then questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It was at that stage, the order of committal was passed on 15.2.2008 for the reason that in respect of the same incident, police charged a case which was committed to Sessions Court and is pending as S.C.214 of 2007. Finding that when there is a main case and a couunter case in respect of the same incident, both are to be tried by the same court, learned Magistrate committed the case to Sessions Court to be tried with S.C.214 of 2007, even though the offences are not exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned CRRP 3354/2008 2 Public Prosecutor were heard. The argument of the learned counsel is that evidence of the complainant was already recorded and petitioners were questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and what remains is only hearing of the arguments and pronouncing the judgment and at that stage, learned Magistrate should not have committed the case. It was argued that it would amount to a second trial as after committal evidence is to be recorded afresh. Learned counsel also argued that no sufficient reason is shown for an order of committal and from a reading of the order, it is not possible to find out, on what basis learned Magistrate found that it is a counter case of the main case. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the order of committal passed by the learned Magistrate, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order. When there is a main case and a counter case in respect of an incident, both cases are to be tried by the same court, one after the other, though evidence in one case cannot be looked into for the other case. That procedure is necessary to avoid conflicting decisions. It cannot be disputed that a Magistrate is competent to commit a case to the Sessions Court, even though the offence is not CRRP 3354/2008 3 exclusively triable by Sessions Court, if Magistrate finds that case is to be tried by Sessions Court. When the offences in the main case are exclusively tried by Sessions Court and the case was committed to Sessions Court, learned Magistrate was justified in committing the counter case also, when it was brought to the notice of learned Magistrate that it is the counter case of the main case to Sessions Court, even though offence in the counter case is not exclusively triable by Sessions Court. This power of the Magistrate is different from the power provided under Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure whereunder when it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, Magistrate shall commit the case to the Sessions Court. Section 323 of Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if in any enquiry or trial it appears to the Magistrate that the case sought to be tried by the Court of Session, he shall commit the case to that court. This power can be exercised by the Magistrate at any time before signing the judgment. If such a committal is made after recording the evidence and questioning the accused, it cannot be challenged on that ground. From the order, it is clear that the case pending before the Assistant Sessions Court and the case CRRP 3354/2008 4 before the Magistrate are in respect of the same incident. In such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the order. Revision petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-