THE BEYOND OBITER LAW BLOG: Legal News
2 min read
The Supreme Court has held that a Magistrate is not required to record evidence under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) where the offence alleged is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. Clarifying the scope of a Magistrate’s powers at the committal stage, the Court observed that the legislature consciously abolished the pre-committal inquiry under the new CrPC, and that requiring witnesses to depose twice on the same facts serves no useful purpose and finds no support in law.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, while allowing an appeal against a Punjab and Haryana High Court order remanding a complaint-based murder case to the Magistrate for recording pre-charge evidence under Section 244 CrPC.
The case arose from an incident in April 2007 in which the appellant’s father died following an altercation. A private complaint was filed before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC. After recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, the Magistrate summoned the accused and committed the matter to the Sessions Court, where charges were ultimately framed against only one of the three accused.
The appellant challenged the discharge of the remaining accused before the High Court. However, instead of deciding the revision on merits, the High Court remanded the matter to the Magistrate, holding that since the prosecution had originated from a private complaint, evidence under Section 244 CrPC was required to be recorded before the case could be committed to the Sessions Court.
Setting aside this view, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had misconstrued the statutory scheme of the CrPC.
The Bench observed that Section 244 forms part of Chapter XIX dealing with warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report and applies only to offences triable by Magistrates. Where the alleged offence is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions - such as murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the procedure under Section 209 CrPC applies, requiring the Magistrate to commit the case directly to the Sessions Court without conducting any pre-committal inquiry.
Rejecting the reasoning adopted by the High Court, the Court observed:
“If the reasoning of the High Court is accepted, a number of witnesses would be required to depose about the same set of facts and circumstances, at least twice. This may not be of any particular use, nor mandate of law.”
The Court relied upon the Constitution Bench decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), which recognised that, at the stage of committal, the Magistrate performs functions that are essentially administrative rather than adjudicatory and is not expected to examine the merits of the prosecution case.
Reiterating the legislative intent behind the 1973 Code, the Bench noted that Parliament had consciously done away with the elaborate committal inquiry that existed under the old Code of Criminal Procedure. Referring to the observations of Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer in Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of India, the Court observed that permitting the Magistrate to evaluate evidence before committal would defeat the very purpose of the legislative change. It reiterated that the Magistrate’s authority at this stage has appropriately been described as a “narrow inspection hole.”
The Court also relied on the three-Judge Bench decisions in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi and Rattiram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, both of which recognised that the new CrPC consciously abolished the pre-committal inquiry to streamline criminal procedure. The judgments relied upon by the High Court were distinguished on facts.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s remand order and directed it to hear afresh both the appellant’s criminal revision and the respondent’s petition on their merits. The High Court has been requested to dispose of the matters within nine months.