P L D 1952 Baghdad﷓ul﷓Jadid 14 (PLP)

ABDUL AZIZ, C. J.‑It is a very unfortunate case which has been evidently mishandled by Mr. Dilshad Ali Kureishy Additional District Magistrate, Rhaimyar Khan. Firstly he had framed a charge making the case triable by him but despite that committed it to the Court of Sessions. The commitment order was quashed by me vide my order dated 12th April 1951. Later on the case proceeded in his Court where it had attained a sufficiently advanced stage in his Court. He barely at the request of the Prosecuting Inspector without consider ing the consequences thereof altered the charge and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions judge has referred it to the High Court to send it back to the Magis trate's Court. The case was sent to the Sessions Court by the Magistrate on the ground that it had some connection with another case pending in the Court of Sessions Judge. Crown Counsel does not support the request of the Prosecuting Inspec tor and Mr. Dilshad s view. The other case referred to a different occurrence and is now practically completed in the Court of the Sessions judge and awaits decision. The present case refers to another occurrence, consequently the Prosecuting Inspector should not have made an ill‑considered request and the learned Magistrate should have given due consideration to it. Moreover the order of the learned Magistrate does not amount to an order of commitment. Section 213 of the Criminal P. C. impera tively lays down that the Magistrate shall record "briefly the reason for such commitment." But the order of the learned Magistrate dated 10th of September, 1951 is devoid of reasons' for commitment. It was essential for the Magistrate to marshal the evidence in the order in which it should come under judi cial consideration. A Magistrate in his grounds of commitment should specifically note with exactness and precision the proof against each particular prisoner and the manner in which it is supported. Failure of the Magistrate to give reasons for com mital in a case which he could deal with may amount to an ille gality and the High Court may 'set aside the commitment. A similar case has arisen before a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in which the accused were charged with‑theft under sec tion 316 of the Penal Code. The Magistrate drew up a charge against the accused, but instead of trying them himself com mitted them to the Court of Session on the ground that the case was connected with another case in which he felt bound by law to commit. The connection, however, between the cases was not of such a character as to embarrass or prejudice the accused, if they had been tried by the Magistrate himself. It was held there that the reason given by the Magistrate for com mitment was not good in law or in fact, and, therefore, the com mitment must be quashed. In the present case in the first in stance, it has been admitted before me by the Crown Counsel, that there was no connection between this case and the case already committed to the Sessions and consequently there were no reasons for the Magistrate to accept the ill‑considered request of the Prosecuting Inspector to commit the case to the Court of Sessions and secondly the order of the Magistrate was not legal according to law as it contained no reasons for commitment. I have therefore no alternative but to quash the order of commitment and to direct the Magistrate to try the case himself and finish it as early as possible. The necessity to alter the charge would again arise, and this the Magistrate should not hesitate to do. Recommendation of the Sessions judge is accepted and the file is sent back to the Additional District Magistrate. A. H. Commitment quashed.