The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) that the power of a Magistrate under Section 323 of the CrPC to commit a case to the Court of Sessions must be exercised by forming a reasoned opinion, based on the evidence on record, that the case warrants a trial by the higher court. The Court clarified that the mere fact that an offence is punishable with a sentence exceeding the Magistrate’s powers is not, in itself, a sufficient ground for committal without an application of mind to the evidence.
The procedure for such committal should be guided by the principles analogous to those in Section 325 of the CrPC, which mandate the formation of an opinion of guilt after considering the evidence. Therefore, a Magistrate committing a case must record skeletal reasons, derived from the evidence, to justify the opinion that a punishment more severe than they are empowered to inflict, might be necessary, added the Court.
The High Court held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had failed to apply the principles of Sections 323 and 325 of the CrPC correctly. The committal of the case to the Court of Sessions was deemed unjustified due to the absence of an opinion based on the evidence recorded during the trial. Consequently, the Court quashed the order of the CJM, and remanded the proceeding back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, with a direction to first form an opinion based on the skeletal evidence and then, if deemed necessary, commit the case to the Court of Sessions in accordance with the law.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Pravin S. Patil observed that that while Section 323 of the CrPC empowers a Magistrate to commit a case to the Court of Sessions at any stage of the proceedings, this power is not to be exercised mechanically. The Bench opined that for a Magistrate to form the view that a case “ought to be tried by the Court of Sessions”, it is necessary to discuss the evidence on record and formulate an opinion of guilt.
The Bench however noted that the impugned order was devoid of any such discussion or reasoning. It further observed that Section 323 of the CrPC should be read in conjunction with Section 325, which provides a procedure for a Magistrate who believes an accused deserves a more severe punishment than they can inflict. This procedure requires the Magistrate to record an opinion based on the evidence before submitting the proceedings to the CJM.
The Bench reasoned that a similar process of forming and recording an opinion based on evidence is expected when a CJM commits a case to the Court of Sessions under Section 323. Lastly, the Bench also remarked that the maximum punishment prescribed for an offence is not automatically awarded; it depends on the specific facts and the accused’s role, which necessitates the recording of reasons for anticipating a higher punishment.
Briefly, a complaint was lodged against the Applicant, Mohammed Javed Abdul Wahab, resulting in the registration of a crime for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 170, and 171 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following an investigation, a chargesheet was filed before the CJM, who took cognizance, framed charges, and recorded evidence.
When the matter was at the stage of recording the Applicant’s statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, the CJM passed an order committing the case to the Court of Sessions. The reason cited was that the offence under Section 467 of the IPC carries a potential punishment of life imprisonment, which exceeds the CJM’s sentencing authority of up to seven years.
Appearances:
Advocates S.V. Sirpurkar, Garima Jain, and Rohini Pande, for the Applicant
APP D. I. Charlewar, for the Respondent/State
Advocate S. R. Charpe, for the Intervener/Informant
