When A Case Is Committed By Magistrate To Sessions Court U/S. 323 CrPC, Trial Should Begin De Novo: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court observed that when a case is committed by the Magistrate to the Court of Session, the trial must commence de novo.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with an 'important question of law' whether a de novo trial is required to be conducted when a case is committed by the Court of Magistrate to the Court of Session in terms of Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
The court, in this regard, observed: "When a case is committed by the Magistrate to the Court of Session, the trial would have to begin de novo. The Court of Session would first frame charges and then proceed with the examination of the witnesses."
Advocates Rajat Wadhwa, Dhreti Bhatia and Gurpreet Singh Gill appeared for the Petitioner while Additional Public Prosecutor Shoaib Haider appeared for the State.
Background: In 2003, an FIR was filed concerning offences under Sections 341, 323, 308, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the present Petitioner. Two years later, a metropolitan magistrate framed charges in the case and dismissed a complainant's application during the trial, which sought the transfer of the case to the Court of Session based on the assertion of an offence under Section 307 of the IPC.
Subsequently, the Sessions Court, upon reviewing the complainant's revision petition challenging the magistrate's decision, overturned the magistrate's order. The Sessions Court concluded that the case warranted consideration under Section 307 of the IPC and, consequently, committed the case to the Court of Session, overturning the earlier decision.
Accordingly, the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) framed charges for offences under Sections 307/341/323/326 read with Sections 506-II/34 of the IPC. Following this, the trial commenced in the Sessions Court, during which three prosecution witnesses were examined, cross-examined, and subsequently discharged. However, in a subsequent development, the ASJ, in an order, determined that initiating a fresh de novo trial was unnecessary. This decision was particularly emphasized given that all witnesses had already been examined by the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM).
The Petitioner-accused approached the Delhi High Court challenging the order of an Additional Session Judge (ASJ). The Petitioner submitted that it would cause procedural confusion and prejudice if the evidence recorded before the MM was read in the present case.
On the other hand, the Respondents contended that since the incident in the present case happened as far back as 2003, a de novo trial would only cause delay and prejudice to the complainant and placed reliance on the provisions of Section 326 of the CrPC in this regard.
After considering the submissions, the Court cited the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Mahmood Hasan v. State of Haryana (2019 SCC OnLine P&H 7637) and highlighted that the High Court had unequivocally established that if the Court of Session concurs with the decision of the committing Magistrate, then the trial must commence de novo following the procedure outlined in Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court further referred to the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raju v. Union of India (MANU/MP/0436/2000), where Section 323 of CrPC was challenged. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in its ruling had emphasised that Section 323 Cr.P.C. does not impede the right to a speedy trial; instead, it addresses the fundamental question of which court is competent to try a case. The court had also observed that if, during the course of an inquiry, a Magistrate determines that a case is not within his jurisdiction or should not be tried by him, it is incumbent upon him to refer the case to the appropriate court.
Accordingly, the Court stated, "I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid views taken by the High Courts of Madras, Punjab and Haryana and Madhya Pradesh. The mandate of Section 323 of the CrPC is clear. When a case is committed by the Magistrate to the Court of Session, the trial would have to begin de novo. The Court of Session would first frame charges and then proceed with the examination of the witnesses."
The Court further observed, "When a case is committed by the Court of Magistrate to the Court of Session, the Magistrate becomes functus officio and any evidence recorded therein cannot be held to be admissible for the purposes of a de novo trial before the committal Court. Therefore, the evidence would also have to be recorded de novo."
The Court also clarified that Section 326 of the CrPC covers cases, wherein a Magistrate/Judge has been succeeded by another Magistrate/Judge and such successor, can act on the evidence recorded by his predecessor hence the Sessions Court cannot be treated as a successor of the Magistrate. The Court held that therefore, Section 326 of the CrPC would not be applicable to the present case.
The Court accordingly allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Shankar @ Gori Shankar V. State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. [CRL.M.C. 42/2023 & CRL.M.A. 142/2023(stay)]
