Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.22 seconds)
Raj Kishore Prasad vs State Of Bihar on 1 May, 1996 cites

State Of U.P vs Laxmi Brahman & Anr on 11 March, 1983

(Emphasis supplied) The present Section 209 is thus the product of the aforesaid expert deliberation followed by legislative exercise. It is thus to be seen prominently that preliminary inquiries then known as "committal proceed- ings" have been abolished in cases triable by a Court of Session, The functions left to be performed by the Magistrate, such as granting copies, preparing the records, notifying the Public Prosecutor etc. are thus prelimi-nary or ministerial in nature. It is of course true that the Magistrate at that juncture takes cognizance of a sort, but that is solely to perform those preliminary functions as a facilitator, towards placement of the ease before the Court of Session, rather than being an adjudicator. It is thus manifest that in the sphere of the limited functioning of the magistrate, no applica-tion of mind is required in order to determine any issue raised, or to adjudge anyone guilty or not, or otherwise to pronounce upon the truth-fulness of any version. The role of the Magistrate thus is only to see that the package sent to the Court of Session is in order, so that it can proceed straight away with the trial and that nothing is lacking in content, as per requirements of Section 207 and 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such proceedings thus, in our opinion do not fall squarely within the ambit of "inquiry" as defined in section 2(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which defines that "inquiry means every inquiry, other than a trial con-ducted under this Code by a Magistrate or a the Court", because of the prelude of its being "subject to the context otherwise requiring", As said before, the context requires the proceedings before a Magistrate to be formal, barely committal in that sense, and that any notion based upon the old state of law of its being an inquiry to which Section 319 could get attracted, has been done away with. Therefore, it would be legitimate for us to conclude that the Magistrate at the stage of Section 209 Cr.P.C. is forbidden to apply his mind to the merit of the matter and determine as to whether any accused need be added or subtracted to face trial before the Court of Session. This Court in State of U.P. v. Lakshmi Brahman and Another, AIR (1983) SC 439 445 took a view which prima facie does not seem to be. in accord with our Views afore-expressed. It was held as follows :
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 102 - D A Desai - Full Document
1   2 Next