Chhailla vs The State

Bedi, J.—The petitioner along with four others was committed to the Court of Session to stand his trial under sections 120-B, 109, 409, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate, while committing them, did not record the evidence of any witnesses but relied on certain documents and the report of a handwriting expert. The petitioner felt aggrieved and lodged this petition tinder section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the commitment proceedings.

The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to section 207-A (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code and submitted that it was incumbent on the part of the Magistrate to record the evidence of the witnesses and then commit the petitioner to the Court of Session if he found a prima facie case against him. A perusal of sub-section (4) of the above section shows in unambiguous terns that the argument of the counsel has no force. This ''sub-section runs asunder:

The Magistrate shall then proceed to take the evidence of such persons, if any, as may be produced by the prosecution as witnesses to the actual commission of the offence alleged; and if the Magistrate is of the opinion that it is necessary in the interests of justice to take the evidence of any ore or more of the other witnesses for the prosecution, he may take such evidence also before committing the accused persons to the Court of Session.

The words "if any" leave no ambiguity in one''s mind. Moreover it was held in Krishna v. State of Mysore AIR 1957 Mysore 5, which was a Division Bench-ruling, that "the recording of the evidence referred to in the latter part of section 207-A (4) is purely within the discretion of the Magistrate, and, therefore, the omission to examine in that behalf any other witness or witnesses suo motu cannot be such as to vitiate the order of committal." The same view was propounded in Manik Chand Chowdhury and Others Vs. The State, , which is also a Division Bench case and the learned Judges held that-

It cannot be contended that u/s 207-A the prosecution are bound, under the first part of sub-section (4) of the section, to examine all the witnesses of the actual commission of the offence and that if they fail to do so, the Magistrate is bound, under the second part of the same sub-section, to examine them or at least he ought to examine them in the interest of justice. Such an obligation cannot be read into the language of the sub-section. The first part undoubtedly lays an obligation but it is only an obligation on the Magistrate to examine such witnesses of the actual commission of the offence alleged as the prosecution may produce before him. Primarily and directly, the second part lays no obligation at all, but only confers a power and discretion on the Magistrate to examine on his own account witnesses other than those examined by the prosecution, if he considers it to be in the interests of justice to do so.

Besides these, my attention was also drawn by the State counsel to another case reported as Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, The State counsel also drew my attention to section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code and stated that the commitment once made u/s 213 by a competent Magistrate or by a civil or revenue Court u/s 478 can be quashed by the High Court only and only on a point of law. The learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the petitioner''s counsel has not been able to point out anything against the law on the basis of which the commitment of the petitioner could be quashed. In fact, after the attention of the counsel for the petitioner was drawn to the above-mentioned authorities, he had nothing to say.

Taking the above-mentioned cases in view and following the same and also the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the State I see no reason to interfere in this petition and dismiss the same.