IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 CRL.REF.No. 10 of 2007() ------------------------ SC.47/2006 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM CP.9/2005 of J.M.F.C.,PALA CRL.REF. BY SESSIONS JUDGE,KOTTAYAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REFERENCE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.Ref.No.10 of 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008 ORDER This reference under Section 395 Cr.P.C arises out of the letter dated 13.4.07 of the Sessions Judge, Kottayam pointing out the irregularity in the committal order passed by the J.F.C.M, Palakkad in C.P.No.9/2005. That case arouse out of Crime No.504/2004 of Pala Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 342,363,323, 452, 506 (i) & 308 read with 34 IPC. The incident forming the subject matter of crime No.504/2004 referred to above took place on 14.5.04. But the charge sheet in the case not only took in the above incident but also another incident which took place on 17.9.04, in which the accused and the victims were different persons and the offences were those punishable under Section 452, 506(1) and 120B read with 34 IPC. The case was accordingly numbered as C.P.No.9/2005 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala, without getting a split charge from the Police. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Kottayam for trial. The Sessions Court on receipt of the records made over the case to the Additional Sessions Court Crl.Ref.No. 10 of 2007 2 (Ad hoc) II, Kottayam for trial and disposal. Noticing the fact that two different and distinct occurrences were clubbed together by the Police in that case, the Additional Sessions Judge called for and obtained separate charge sheets from the Police and informed the Sessions Judge about the impropriety in the committal order and requested to do the needful. That is how the Sessions Court has made this reference. 2. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for A1,A2 and A5 in C.P.No.9/2005. There is no dispute that the charge sheet filed by the Police had clubbed two different and distinct incidents into one resulting in mis joinder of charges. Hence, the learned Magistrate, instead of committing the entire case to the Court of Sessions, ought to have called upon the Police to file a separate charge sheets for each of the incidents. That was not done. Hence the committal order passed in C.P.No.9/2005 by the J.F.C.M, Pala is irregular and is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the observations hereinabove contained. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj