[s. 323 CrPC] Magistrate Cannot Commit Case To Sessions Court Merely Due To Higher Punishment, Must Record Reasons: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that though a Magistrate is empowered under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to commit a case to the Court of Sessions at any stage of the inquiry or trial, such power cannot be exercised mechanically or solely on the basis of the severe nature of the punishment prescribed for the offence. The Court held that the Magistrate must form an...
The Bombay High Court has held that though a Magistrate is empowered under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to commit a case to the Court of Sessions at any stage of the inquiry or trial, such power cannot be exercised mechanically or solely on the basis of the severe nature of the punishment prescribed for the offence. The Court held that the Magistrate must form an opinion, supported by reasons, after discussing the evidence recorded before him, to conclude that the case ought to be tried by the Sessions Court.
Justice Pravin S. Patil was hearing a Criminal Application filed challenging the order dated 30 April 2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, by which Regular Criminal Case No. 224 of 2018 was committed to the Court of Sessions. The applicant was facing trial for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 170 and 171 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the charges were framed and evidence of the parties was recorded, the matter was posted for the recording of the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC. At that stage, the Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court on the sole ground that the offence under Section 467 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life or up to ten years, whereas the Magistrate was empowered to impose punishment only up to seven years.
The Court examined the scheme of Sections 323 and 325 of the CrPC and held that the two provisions must be read harmoniously. It observed that under Section 325, a Magistrate is required to form an opinion on the guilt of the accused after considering the evidence and record reasons before forwarding the case. Applying the same principle to Section 323, the Court held that a Magistrate must discuss the evidence on record and record at least skeletal reasons demonstrating how the case warrants trial by the Sessions Court. Merely referring to the maximum punishment prescribed under the statute, without analysing the role attributed to the accused or the evidence led, is insufficient.
“… he should have formed an opinion on the basis of evidence recorded before him and submit his proceedings along with opinion to the Court of Sessions,” the Court observed.
The Court further observed that the mere fact that an offence carries a higher maximum punishment does not ipso facto mean that such punishment would necessarily be imposed in the case. Whether a sentence exceeding the Magistrate's powers is warranted depends on the facts, circumstances and evidence adduced. It observed:
“… the maximum punishment provided under the statute does not ipso facto mean that maximum punishment is to be awarded to the Accused… it always depends upon the facts and circumstances and the role attributed to the Accused in the offence. It is, therefore, necessary to record reasons on what basis he was of the opinion that the accused be inflicted maximum punishment in the matter.”
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the application, quashed and set aside the order dated 30 April 2024 committing the case to the Sessions Court, and remanded the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, with a direction to reconsider the issue afresh.
Case Title: Mohammed Javed Abdul Wahab v. State of Maharashtra [CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 911 OF 2024]