State of Kerala vs Abdulla

P.T. Raman Nayar, J.—The action of the learned magistrate in first convicting the accused of offences under Sections 380 and 461, I.P.C. trying the case as a warrant case following the procedure Prescribed by Section 251A, Cr. P.C. since it was instituted on a police report, and then discovering that the accused was an old offender whom he could not adequately punish and therefore committing him to Sessions u/s 348 Crl, P.C. - in view of the conviction, Section 403 Crl. P.C. would bar a trial by the Sessions Court - is clearly illegal and I am afraid that both the conviction and the commitment have to be set aside - See In re K, Sellandi ILR 38 Mad 552 : AIR 1914 Mad 149 (2)

With regard to the commitment, I might observe that by reason of Section 347(1) Crl. P.C. the magistrate was bound to follow the procedure Prescribed by Section 207A, Crl. P.C. That he has not done, die accused having pleaded guilty to the charge and having been convicted on that plea without any evidence being recorded. The commitment is therefore illegal - See Chhadami Lal Jain and Others Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, .

I accept this reference by the Sessions Judge, set aside both the conviction and the commitment of the accused, and direct an inquiry into the case against him u/s 207-A Crl.. P.C. The inquiry will be held by the District Magistrate or by such other magistrate of competent jurisdiction as the Dist. Magistrate may direct.