A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh ruled that when a complaint discloses an offence falling solely within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court—such as murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code—the Magistrate’s responsibility is confined to determining whether the case is indeed Sessions-triable. Recording evidence at that stage is unnecessary.
The Bench relied on the principle laid down in Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Ashutosh Ghosh, observing that the Magistrate’s task is limited to identifying the nature of the offence before committing the matter.
The dispute arose after a Magistrate forwarded a complaint alleging murder to the Sessions Court without recording evidence under Section 244 of the CrPC. The prosecution challenged the committal before the High Court, arguing that the Magistrate ought to have examined prosecution witnesses before transferring the case.
Accepting that contention, the High Court ruled that Section 244 required the Magistrate to hear prosecution evidence even where the alleged offences were beyond the Magistrate’s trial jurisdiction. It further observed that a Magistrate should not function merely as a conduit for the prosecution.
The Supreme Court disagreed with that interpretation, holding that the CrPC does not impose such a requirement in cases that are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. According to the Bench, compelling Magistrates to record evidence before committal would effectively introduce a preliminary trial that the statute never envisaged.
The judgment noted that Parliament intentionally departed from the earlier procedural framework by eliminating any obligation to conduct evidentiary proceedings before committal in such cases. The Magistrate, the Court said, is not expected to assess the merits of the allegations or evaluate witness testimony before the Sessions Court assumes jurisdiction.
The Bench also pointed out the practical consequences of the High Court’s approach. If prosecution witnesses were required to testify before the Magistrate and then again before the Sessions Court on identical facts, it would lead to avoidable duplication without advancing the administration of justice.
The Court observed that such repeated examination of witnesses serves no legal purpose and is not contemplated by the procedural law.
Clarifying the scope of Section 244, the Bench explained that the provision governs warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report that are themselves triable by Magistrates. It cannot be extended to complaint cases involving offences reserved exclusively for trial by the Sessions Court.
The Supreme Court further distinguished earlier decisions cited by the High Court, including Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand, Harinarayan G. Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra, and Sunil Mehta v. State of Gujarat, observing that those rulings dealt with different factual situations or offences triable by Magistrates and therefore did not support the interpretation adopted by the High Court.
Reiterating the limited role assigned to Magistrates at the committal stage, the Bench referred to the observation in Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of India that a Magistrate exercises only a “narrow inspection” while ensuring procedural compliance, including supplying necessary documents to the accused before forwarding the case to the competent Sessions Court.
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and reaffirmed that pre-charge evidence under Section 244 is not a prerequisite for committing complaint cases involving offences exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
