Summary of the Judgment
The Supreme Court held that where the offence disclosed in a complaint case is exclusively triable by the Court of Session,
the Magistrate is not required to record evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committing the case under Section 209 CrPC.
The Court reasoned that Section 244 belongs to the procedure for warrant cases tried by Magistrates, particularly cases
instituted otherwise than on a police report. However, when the offence is triable exclusively by the Sessions Court, the
Magistrate’s role is limited to compliance with Sections 207/208 CrPC and committal under Section 209 CrPC.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court:
- Allowed the appeal;
- Set aside the High Court’s remand order;
- Directed the High Court to rehear the complainant’s revision and the accused’s challenge independently;
- Requested the High Court to decide the matters within nine months.
Analysis
Core Legal Principle
The judgment lays down that Section 244 CrPC is not a mandatory pre-committal step in complaint cases involving
offences exclusively triable by a Court of Session. The Magistrate cannot conduct a mini-trial or full pre-charge
evidence exercise before committal. His function at that stage is narrow and largely procedural.
Precedents Cited
Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand
The High Court relied on this case to support the proposition that evidence under Section 244 CrPC must be recorded
before charge in complaint warrant cases. The Supreme Court distinguished it. It observed that Ajoy Kumar Ghose v.
State of Jharkhand concerned offences triable by a Magistrate and dealt with the distinction between police-report
warrant cases and complaint warrant cases. It did not govern cases where the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
This precedent concerned Section 319 CrPC and the rights of additional accused summoned during proceedings. The Supreme Court
held that reliance on this case was misplaced because the present dispute was not about summoning additional accused under
Section 319 or their right of cross-examination. The issue was strictly about whether Section 244 evidence is needed before committal.
In this case, the Court had held that evidence recorded under Section 202 CrPC could not substitute evidence required under
Section 244 CrPC in a complaint warrant case. The Supreme Court distinguished it because the offences in Sunil Mehta v.
State of Gujarat were within the Magistrate’s trial jurisdiction. The present case involved allegations including murder,
which is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
The Constitution Bench decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab was relied on by the Supreme Court to emphasize
that at the stage of Sections 207 to 209 CrPC, the Magistrate performs a limited, largely administrative role. The Magistrate
is not to assess the merits of the case or decide who should be added or removed as an accused before the Sessions Court trial.
This authority supported the proposition that for committal, the Magistrate only needs to see whether the offence is exclusively
triable by the Sessions Court. No evidence-taking exercise is required at that stage.
The judgment invoked Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of India for the principle that the Magistrate should not examine the
merits of a Sessions-triable case at the committal stage. The Magistrate’s role was described as a “narrow inspection hole”,
meaning that he only verifies whether the case must legally go to the Sessions Court.
This three-judge Bench decision was important because it explained the legislative shift from the old CrPC, 1898 to the present
CrPC, 1973. Under the old Code, committal proceedings involved detailed inquiry and evidence. The present Code abolished that
elaborate committal inquiry to avoid delay. The Supreme Court used this precedent to reinforce that evidence is to be taken
after charge, not at the committal stage.
Rattiram v. State of M.P. also examined the difference between the old and new procedural regimes. It held that the
Magistrate’s role in committal under the current Code is highly restricted. This precedent strengthened the Supreme Court’s
conclusion that requiring Section 244 evidence before committal would revive a procedure deliberately removed by Parliament.
Legal Reasoning
The Supreme Court’s reasoning rested on the structure of the CrPC. Section 200 CrPC deals with examination of the complainant
when a Magistrate takes cognizance on a complaint. Section 209 CrPC governs commitment of cases to the Sessions Court when
the offence is exclusively triable by it. Section 244 CrPC, by contrast, forms part of Chapter XIX, which prescribes the
procedure for warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report.
The Court held that Section 244 cannot be read in isolation. It applies to warrant cases which are to be tried by the Magistrate.
Where the case must go to the Sessions Court, Section 209 controls the process. Requiring Section 244 evidence before committal
would force witnesses to depose twice on the same facts: first before the Magistrate and again before the Sessions Court. The
Court found that such duplication is neither useful nor required by law.
Impact
This judgment will significantly affect complaint cases involving serious offences such as murder, rape, dacoity, or other
offences exclusively triable by Sessions Courts. It prevents unnecessary remands to Magistrates for recording pre-charge evidence
under Section 244 CrPC.
The ruling promotes procedural efficiency, reduces duplication of evidence, and avoids delay in Sessions trials. It also clarifies
that an accused’s procedural safeguards are preserved at the Sessions stage through discharge, framing of charge, trial, and
cross-examination, but not by insisting on a full pre-committal evidence process before the Magistrate.