In Re: Kadiam Satyam and Another

Ramaswami, J.—This is a criminal revision case filed against the order made by the learned District Magistrate of West Godavari in C. R. P.

No. 23 of 1950.

The facts are: The petitioners before us were charged for offences under Sections 307 and 325 I. P. C. of having attempted to murder P. W. 1

and causing him grievous hurt. The learned Sub Magistrate after hearing prosecution evidence discharged the petitioners of the charge u/s 307 and

directed that the trial should be proceeded with u/s 325 I. P. C. The case was converted from a P. R. enquiry into a calendar case.

Thereupon the prosecution moved the learned District Magistrate of West Godavari, Mr. Gwynne and he came to the conclusion that the

learned Sub Magistrate was not justified in dropping the charge u/s 307 and proceeding only with the offence u/s 325 and directed the committal

of the accused to the sessions under Sections 307 and 325 I. P. C. Hence this revision petition.

In my opinion the learned District Magistrate had ample grounds for directing the accused persons to be tried u/s 307 in the following

circumstances. In this case there is prima facie evidence that these accused persons had the intention to murder P. W. 1. Secondly ''ex facie'' the

nature of the injuries inflicted (sic) which can be seen from the medical certificate point to the fact that it was not merely a case of causing grievous

hurt. It is unnecessary to multiply the other grounds which have been clearly set out by the learned District Magistrate in his order which go to

show that he properly interfered with the improper implied discharge of the Sub Magistrate of Tadepalligudem and directed their committal,

It is contended by the learned advocate for the petitioners before me that the learned District Magistrate was not justified because the Sub

Magistrate has given ample reasons for discharging the accused under the serious offence of Section 307. But in advancing the argument it is

overlooked that this was not a case of discharge in a calendar case but a discharge of an offence exclusively triable by the Sessions Court and

though the magistrate has the privilege as ''well as the prerogative to weigh the evidence, still when there is prim a facie presentable evidence which

can convince another tribunal to come to a different conclusion, it was the duty of the Magistrate to commit the case to the sessions and not take

upon himself the duty and responsibility of discharging the accused which is the privilege & prerogative of the Sessions Judge sitting with the

assessors. This was a clear case of clutching at jurisdiction and the improper discharge has been properly interfered with.

The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.