IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1781 of 2008() ------------------------------ SC.216/2008 of SPL. COURT (NDPS ACT CASES)/ IIND ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONERS: ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. BIJU, S/O.RAJAN, PALACHUMTHALACKAL VEEDU, MUTHUVANKUDI, KUNCHITHANNI VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. 2. AJEESH, S/O.RAGHAVAN, VELLARAMPARACKAL VEEDU, MUTHEVANKUDI, KUNCHITHANNI VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. 3. VIJI, W/O.AJEESH, VELLARAMPARACKAL VEEDU, MUTHEVANKUDI, KUNCHITHANNI VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENTS:COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BABY, S/O.NARAYANAN, CHEERAKUNNEL VEEDU, MUTHUVANKUDI KARA, KUNCHITHANNI VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.RAVEENDRA BABU – R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.5352/2008 IN CRL.R.P.NO.1781/2008 DISMISSED 23/09/2008 SD/-M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO. 1781 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 23rd day of September,2008 ORDER This petition is filed under section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge,Thodupuzha directing issuance of summons to the petitioners, who are accused 1 to 3. S.C.216/2008 was taken on file on the order of committal passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate in CMP 1467/2007, a private complaint filed by first respondent complainant alleging commission of an offence under section 498A and 304B of IPC. Learned Magistrate on satisfying that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further and the offence under section 304B is an offence is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions and committed it to the Sessions Court as provided under section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure. On receipt of the case, learned Sessions Judge made CRRP 1781/2008 2 over the case to Additional Sessions judge who issued summons as per order dated 5.5.2008. The argument of the learned counsel is that no offence under section 304B of IPC is made out against petitioners and Police has submitted a charge sheet which was taken cognizance of only against the mother-in-law and petitioners, the sister-in- law and her husband were implicated on a complaint filed by the father of the deceased. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and first respondent de facto complainant were heard. 3. Once a case is committed to the Sessions Court by the Magistrate as provided under section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure, that case is to be tried as provided under Chapter XVIII. Once there is an order of committal, as provided under section 225, whether committal was on a private complaint or on a final report submitted by the police after investigation, trial is to be conducted by the Public Prosecutor. Under section CRRP 1781/2008 3 226 of Code of Criminal Procedure when accused appeared or brought before the court pursuant to an order of committal under section 209, Public Prosecutor shall open his case by describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. Section 227 provides for discharge. If upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and hearing the submissions of the prosecution and the accused, Sessions Judge if considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall be discharged after recording reasons for so doing as provided under section 227. If the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that accused has committed an offence, he has to frame the charge and proceed thereafter as provided under section 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are entitled to raise all the contentions while Sessions Judge hearing the case as provided under CRRP 1781/2008 4 section 227 and are entitled to seek an order of discharge. There is no reason to interfere with the order issuing summons to the petitioners as sessions trial does not contemplate an order of discharge of the accused prior to the order of discharge, after hearing, as provided under section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006