Commitment Of Case To Sessions Court U/S.323 Of CrPC Not Justified In Absence Of Magistrate’s Opinion Based On Evidence: Bombay High Court

The High Court was considering an application filed by the Applicant challenging the order by the Chief Judicial Magistrate committing the case to the Court of Sessions on the ground that offence under Section 467 of Indian Penal Code is punishable upto life imprisonment which may extend to ten years i.e. of severe nature, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate is empowered only to inflict punishment upto seven years.

The Single Bench of Justice Pravin S. Patil held, “In the present matter, in view of above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate failed to consider Sections 323 and 325 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a right perspective. In absence of his opinion on the basis of evidence recorded before him, the commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions is not justified.”

Advocate S. V. Sirpurkar represented the Applicant, while Additional Public Prosecutor D. I. Charlewar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Informant/Suman Rajput lodged a complaint against the Applicant under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 170, 171, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After registration of the offence, the Investigating Officer conducted an investigation and filed a chargesheet against the Applicant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldhana. Accordingly, cognisance of the matter was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and charges were framed against the Applicant. After recording the evidence, the matter was fixed for recording statements of the Applicant/Accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Magistrate passed the impugned order by recording the fact that the offence against the Applicant is under Section 467 of IPC and the punishment prescribed for the said offence is up to life imprisonment or with the imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years. According to the Magistrate, he was empowered to inflict punishment only up to seven years, and therefore, he had committed the trial to the Court of Sessions.

Reasoning

Referring to Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Bench explained that after conducting an enquiry into an offence, or a trial before the Magistrate, if it appears to the Magistrate that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Sessions, he shall commit it to that Court under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Bench stated that the Magistrate can commit the trial to the Court of Sessions, but the requirement under Section 323 of the Code is that there should be enquiry into the offence or trial before the Magistrate and after conducting the said trial if it appears to him that prosecution has made out a case that accused can be inflicted maximum punishment or it appears to him that trial shall be tried by the Court of Sessions, then only he can commit the matter to the Sessions Court. The Bench also noted that it would be necessary for the Magistrate to discuss the evidence to formulate the opinion of guilt. The Bench found that, in the present case, no such discussion was prima facie seen in the impugned order.

The Bench further stated that Section 323 is required to be read with Section 325 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 325 provides the procedure that the Magistrate should form an opinion after considering the evidence of the prosecution and the accused recorded before him, and then submit it to the Magistrate to whom he is subordinate. “In my opinion, if this mechanism is provided to submit the proceeding from Magistrate to Chief Judicial Magistrate, same procedure required to be followed while exercising powers under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure”, it added.

The Bench further stated, “In the present case, the learned Magistrate is himself being Chief Judicial Magistrate, and therefore, while committing the case to the Court of Sessions, it is expected from him that, in the same manner as provided under Section 325, 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.”

Thus, partly allowing the application, the Bench remanded the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldhana, with a direction to him to form an opinion on the basis of the skeletal evidence and then commit the case to the Court of Sessions, if so permissible.

Cause Title: Mohammed Javed Abdul Wahab v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:1577)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates S. V. Sirpurkar, Garima Jain, Rohini Pande

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor D. I. Charlewar, Advocate S. R. Charpe

Click here to read/download Order