9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 1181 - SC - Indian LawsConflict of opinion in the decisions of two Two-Judge Benches and Three-Judge Bench - Powers of the Session Court u/s 209 of Crpc - Court of original jurisdiction - issue of summons u/s 193 - committal order passed by the learned Magistrate - This matter was initially directed to be heard by a Bench of Three-Judges in view of the conflict of opinion in the decisions of two Two-Judge Benches, When the matter was taken up for consideration by the Three-Judge Bench, it was brought to the notice of the court that two other decisions had a direct bearing on the question sought to be determined. Ranjit Singh's case disapproved the observations made in Kishun Singh's case, which was to the effect that the Session Court has power under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code to take cognizance of an offence and summon other persons whose complicity in the commission of the trial could prima facie be gathered from the materials available on record. According to the decision in Kishun Singh's case, the Session Court has such power under Section 193 of the Code. On the other hand, in Ranjit Singh's case, it was held that from the stage of committal till the Session Court reached the stage indicated in Section 230 of the Code, that Court could deal only with the accused referred to in Section 209 of the Code and there is no intermediary stage till then enabling the Session Court to add any other person to the array of the accused. HELD THAT - the Session Courts has jurisdiction on committal of a case to it, to take cognizance of the offences of the persons not named as offenders but whose complicity in the case would be evident from the materials available on record. Hence, even without recording evidence, upon committal under Section 209, the Session Judge may summon those persons shown in column 2 of the police report to stand trial along with those already named therein. Consequent upon our aforesaid decision, the view taken by the Referring Court is accepted and it is held that the decision in the case of Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar 1993 (1) TMI 304 - SUPREME COURT and not the decision in Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab 1998 (9) TMI 696 - SUPREME COURT and lays down the law correctly in respect of the powers of the Session Court after committal of the case to it by the learned Magistrate under Section 209 Crpc. The matter is remitted to the Three-Judge Bench to dispose of the pending Criminal Appeals in accordance with the views expressed by the court in this judgment.
Issues Involved:
1. Role of the Committing Magistrate after committing the case to the Court of Session. 2. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to issue summons against persons mentioned in column 2 of the police report. 3. Procedure to be followed by the Magistrate when issuing summons. 4. Powers of the Session Judge to issue summons under Section 193 CrPC. 5. Timing for the Session Judge to issue summons under Section 193 CrPC. 6. Validity of the decision in Ranjit Singh's case versus Kishun Singh's case. Detailed Analysis: 1. Role of the Committing Magistrate: The Court examined whether the Magistrate had any role after committing the case to the Court of Session. It was concluded that the Magistrate has a significant role in committing the case. The Magistrate can disagree with the police report and issue process or summons against the accused if convinced of a prima facie case. This role is essential to avoid duplication and prolongation of trials. 2. Jurisdiction to Issue Summons: The Court held that the Magistrate has the power to issue summons against persons mentioned in column 2 of the police report. This is permissible if the Magistrate disagrees with the police report and believes a prima facie case exists. The Magistrate can act on a protest petition or independently issue summons, ensuring the case is properly tried. 3. Procedure for Issuing Summons: The Court clarified that if the Magistrate decides to issue summons, it should be based on the police report itself. The Magistrate can either inquire into the matter or commit it to the Court of Session if the case is triable by the Session Court. This ensures that the process is streamlined and adheres to the procedural requirements. 4. Powers of the Session Judge: The Court affirmed that the Session Judge has the authority to issue summons under Section 193 CrPC upon receiving the case from the Magistrate. Section 193 allows the Session Court to take cognizance of offences as a Court of original jurisdiction once the case is committed to it by a Magistrate. 5. Timing for Issuing Summons: The Court ruled that the Session Judge does not need to wait until the stage under Section 319 CrPC to issue summons. Upon committal under Section 209, the Session Judge can summon those shown in column 2 of the police report to stand trial along with the accused already named. This avoids unnecessary delays and ensures a comprehensive trial. 6. Validity of Ranjit Singh's Case: The Court concluded that the decision in Kishun Singh's case was correct, and the Session Judge could issue summons under Section 193 CrPC based on the records transmitted by the Magistrate. The decision in Ranjit Singh's case, which suggested otherwise, was not upheld. The Court emphasized that the Session Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences and summon additional accused upon committal. Conclusion: The judgment clarified the roles and powers of the Magistrate and Session Judge in criminal proceedings. The Magistrate can issue summons against additional accused before committing the case to the Court of Session, and the Session Judge can take cognizance and issue summons upon committal. The decision in Kishun Singh's case was upheld as the correct interpretation of the law. The matter was remitted to the Three-Judge Bench to dispose of the pending Criminal Appeals accordingly.
|
