CHHADAMI LAL JAIN AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 736 · Decided: 14-09-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

'959 
The State of 
Bihar 
v. 
Hiralal Kejriwal 
and Another 
Subba Rao ]. 
'959 
736 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] 
ground for permitting the application tO be filed at a 
later stage. In the application for special leave filed 
in this Court, though it was stated that the application 
filed in the High Court for certificate was rejected, the 
reason for the rejection was not disclosed. Further, 
the State, presumably, filed this appeal to get the legal 
position clarified. We also believe that public interest 
does not require that the stale matter should be 
resuscitated. In the circumstances, we would be 
justified not to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction, 
and we accordingly dismiss the appeal. 
A ppe<il dismissed. 
CHHADAMI LAL JAIN AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 
ANOTHER 
(JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR, A. K. SARKAR and 
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
Criminal Trial-Commitment Order-Quashing of-Magistrate 
starting trial as in warrant case-Prosecution witness examined and 
cross-examined-Charge framed 
without giving opportunity to 
accused to adduce defence evidence and co1nmitment order passed- -No 
intimation to accused of intention to commit-Whether commitment 
order illegal-Prejudice--Code of Criminal Procedure, I898 (V of 
I898), SS. 208, 347 and 537. 
A complaint was filed against seven persons under ss. 409, 
465, 467, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. 
After examin-
ing the complainant summonses were issued to the accused to 
answer a charge under s. 406. 
The trial started as in a warrant 
case; prosecution witnesses were examined and cross-examined 
and the statements of the accused were recorded, and the 
Magistrate heard arguments on the question of framing charges. 
Thereafter, he framed charges under ss 409 and 465 read with 
ss. 471 and 477A, and without giving previous intimation of his 
intention to do so1 passed an order committing the appellants to 
the Court of Sessions. The appellants, contended that the 
commitment was illegal because the case having begun as a 
warrant case it was incumbent upon the Magistrate, when he 
decided to commit the case to the Court of Session, to follow the 
procedure provided in Ch. XVIII Code of Criminal Procedure, 
but he failed to comply with the provisions of ss. 208 to 213 of 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
737 
that Chapter. The complainant urged that even if the provi-
I959 
sions of ss. 208 to 213 had not been complied with no prejudice 
. 
. 
was caused to the appellants and the commitment could not be Chhadami Lal Jain 
quashed. 
v. 
Held, that the commitment order was illegal as the Magistrate 
The State of 
had failed to comply with the provisions of s. 208 of the Code of 
Utlar Pradesh 
Criminal Procedure. The proceedings having begun as in a 
warrant case, if the Magistrate, at a subsequent stage, was of the 
view that the case should be committed to the Court of Sessions, 
he had to act under s. 347(1) of the Code and to follow the 
procedure prescribed for inquiries under Ch. XVIII of the Code. 
When, in the present case, the Magistrate decided to commit the 
case, he should have refrained from framing the charge and 
should have informed the accused of his intention to commit and 
should have called upon the accused to produce defence evidence, 
if any. The failure of the Magistrate to intimate his decision to 
commit to the accused deprived them of the right to produce 
defence evidence, if any, under s. 208. 
The denial of this right 
was itself sufficient to cause prejudice to the accused and failure 
of justice inasmuch as the accused were prevented from leading 
evidence which might have induced the Magistrate not to frame 
the charge against them. 
Subramania Iyer v. King-Emperor, (1901) L.R. 28 I.A. 257 · 
Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor, (1948) L.R. 74 I.A. 65, and' 
Narain Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, [1958] S.C.R, 283, 
referred to. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLA'l'E 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 143 of 1957. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated the 8th 
May, 1957, of the Allahabad High Court, in Criminal 
Reference No. 149 of 1956, arising out of the judgment 
and order dated the 14th January, 1956, of the First 
Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, in Sessions Trial 
No. 141 of 1954 and Criminal Misc. No. I of 1956. 
G. S. Pathak and Mohan Behari Lal, for the appel-. 
lants. 
G. 0. Mnthur, 0. P. Lal and G. N. Dikshit, for the 
respondent No. I. 
Jnnnrdcin Sharma, for respondent No. 2. 
1959. September 14. 
The J
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.