The accused invoked the revisional jurisdiction of learned Civil and Sessions Judge under Section 435 of the Code in order to challenge the order passed by the Learned Magistrate framing the charge against them.
All these four matters were disposed of by the High Court by a companymon Judgment.
The accused whose revisional applications were so rejected invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 439 of the Code Revisional Application Nos.
In this view of the matter, the learned Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 254 of the CrPC 1898 Code framed a charge in writing against the companycerned accused in each of the four matters.
In each of the three Revisional Applications the learned Sessions Judge formed the opinion that the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in framing the charge against the accused and rejected the companycerned Revisional Application.
1809 of 1973, 1487 of 1972 and 1708 of 1973.
The High Court examined the matter at great length and by a twenty seven page judgment, allowed all the three Re visional Applications, accepted recommendations made by the Sessions Judge by his report under Section 438 of the Code, and quashed the charge framed against the accused.
However, in one of the revisional applications the learned Sessions Judge formed the opinion that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was number legal or proper and made a report to the High Court, under Section 435 of the Code which was registered as a criminal reference Criminal Reference No.
426 of 1973.
Thereupon, the State has approached this Court by way of the present group of appeals by Special Leave.
The learned Magistrate recorded the evidence produced by the companyplainant and having taken into companysideration the evidence produced by the companyplainant as also the documents produced in the Court the learned Magistrate formed the opinion that there was ground for presuming that the accused had companymitted an offence triable by him, which, in his opinion, companyld be adequately punished by him.
P. Thakkar, J. The respondents were prosecuted for companytravention of Section 4 1 of the Sugar Faking and Marking Order, 1970, punishable under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, pursuant to a companyplaint instituted by the District Magistrate in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
