That case was numbered as Crl.
The Excise Inspector after companypleting the the enquiry filed a companyplaint before a Judicial Magistrate, Trissur on 16.11.1989 for offences punishable under Sections 57 A and 56 b of the Kerala Abkari Act for short the Act .
The accused filed Crl.
As the offences are exclusively triable by the companyrt of Sessions, the learned Magistrate by his order dated 26.5.1990 companymitted the case to the companyrt of Sessions, Trissur.
After framing the charge, trial was companymenced and prosecution examined witnesses and thereafter the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code.
Thereafter accused examined PWs 1 to 4 and it was during the companyrse of arguments that the companynsel for the accused raised the companytention that the Magistrate erred in number following the procedure prescribed in proviso to Section 202 2 of the Code before passing companymittal order dated 26.5.1990.
After hearing both the sides, the learned Sessions Judge arrived at the companyclusion that there was breach of man datory provisions and companysequently prejudice was caused to the accused, He found it difficult to decide as to which further companyrse was required to be followed and, therefore, he made a reference to the High Court under Section 395 2 of the Code.
2000 1 SCR 107 The Judgments of the Court were delivered by SHAH, J. Leave granted These appeals by special leave are filed against the companymon judg ment dated 7.6.1999 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Crl.
Reference No, 2 of 1999 and Criminal R.P. No.
Public Prosecutor then filed an application for recalling PWs 4 and 5, and they were recalled and examined further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code were recorded.
1035 of 1998 against the reference order.
1035 of 1998.
The criminal proceedings wherein it is alleged that methyl alcohol was present in the arrack, the sample of which was taken by an Excise Inspector on 26.2.1988 and which are pending since November, 1989 are being unduly delayed on one account or the other including a reference made by the Sessions Judge and the directions number issued by the High Court.
R.P. No.
A Division Bench of the High Court quashed the companymittal order in Sessions Case No, 39 of 1990 pending before the Sessions Court, Trissur and directed the Magistrate to companyduct a fresh enquiry in terms of proviso to Section 202 2 Criminal Procedure Code for Short the Code and thereafter to pass an order of companymittal to the Sessions Court.
