Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 193(1)

 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),   S. 193 (1)---Sessions Judge whether could give finding concerning accused absconding at the time of trial and not committed to Sessions by the Magistrate ---Value of such finding.   Where the accused is absconding at the time of his trial and has not been committed to the Court of Session by the Magistrate, any finding concerning him, given by the Sessions Judge in judgment passed in the case of another co-accused has no value in the eyes of law in view of the provisions of section 193 (1), Criminal Procedure Code.   ORDER   ABDUL HAMID KHAN, J.---This is a reference dated 17th August 1957, from the Sessions Judge Muzaffarabad in which he has recommended that the order dated 15th May 1957, committing Mir-Zaman accused to stand his trial in the Court of Sessions under section 307/34 be quashed on the ground that this accused had already been exonerated of the charge in the judgment dated 8th January 1955, by the Sessions Judge at the close of trial of Shah Zaman his co-accused when this accused was absconding and had been proceeded against under section 512 by the committing Magistrate. In the judgment dated 8th January 19 5, the learned Sessions Judge made the following remarks concerning Mir Zaman who was then absconding, "From the evidence produced no case is made out against the accused who is present and against the accused who is absconding: Agreeing with the Assessors Shah Zaman is acquitted for want of proof".   The question involved in this case is whether the Sessions Judge could have given any finding concerning the absconding accused and what is the value of that finding? Section 193 (1) Criminal P. C. lays down that no Court of Sessions shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the- accused has been committed to it by a Magistrate duly empowered in that behalf. Mir Zaman accused was not then committed by the Magistrate to the Court of Session…