Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur, Single Bench of Justice Pravin S. Patil set aside an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate committing a criminal case to the Court of Sessions solely on the ground that one of the alleged offences was punishable with life imprisonment. The Court remanded the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldhana, directing reconsideration and formation of an opinion based on the evidence already recorded before invoking powers under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant had challenged the commitment order passed after evidence was recorded in a case involving offences including cheating and forgery, contending that no reasons were recorded to justify the transfer to the Sessions Court.

The applicant challenged an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldhana, committing a criminal case to the Court of Sessions. The complaint was lodged by the informant against the applicant, leading to registration of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 170, 171 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Cognizance was taken, charges were framed, and evidence of the parties was recorded. The matter was fixed for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Also Read: PMLA | Special Court Must Defer Section 8(7) Confiscation When Appeal Against Section 8(3) Attachment Confirmation Is Pending, Supreme Court Allows Appeal And Sets Aside Confiscation Order

At that stage, the Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court on the ground that the offence under Section 467 IPC was punishable with imprisonment for life or up to ten years, while the Magistrate was empowered to impose punishment only up to seven years. The applicant contended that no reasons were recorded and that the Magistrate failed to form an opinion on the basis of evidence as required under Sections 323 and 325 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The State and the intervener opposed the application, submitting that Section 323 did not mandate recording of reasons.

The Court reproduced Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and observed that “after conducting an enquiry into an offence, or a trial before the Magistrate, if it appears to the Magistrate that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Sessions, he shall commit it to that Court under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure.”

The Court stated, “the learned Magistrate can commit the trial to the Court of Sessions, but the requirement under Section 323 of the Code is that there should be enquiry into the offence or trial before the Magistrate and after conducting the said trial if it appears to him that prosecution has made out a case that accused can be inflicted maximum punishment or it appears to him that trial shall be tried by the Court of Sessions, then only he can commit the matter to the Sessions Court.”

It further recorded, “to reach this conclusion, it would be necessary for the learned Magistrate to discuss the evidence to formulate the opinion of guilt. The said opinion cannot be formulated without discussion of evidence recorded before him. As such, it is but obvious to discuss and record reason for formulating opinion.”

Referring to Section 325 of the Code, the Court observed that “Section 325 provides the procedure that Magistrate should form an opinion after considering the evidence of the prosecution and the accused recorded before him and then submit to the Magistrate to whom he is subordinate.”

The Court stated, “if this mechanism is provided to submit the proceeding from Magistrate to Chief Judicial Magistrate, same procedure required to be followed while exercising powers under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

On the impugned order, the Court recorded, “the learned Magistrate has simply stated that the offence under Section 467 of IPC is punishable upto the life imprisonment which may extend upto ten years… and the learned Magistrate is empowered only to inflict the punishment upto seven years.”

The Court observed, “the maximum punishment provided under the statute does not ipso facto means that maximum punishment is to be awarded to the Accused. In my opinion, it is always depend upon the facts and circumstances and the role attributed to the Accused in the offence.”

It concluded, “In absence of his opinion on the basis of evidence recorded before him, the commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions is not justified.”

Also Read: Solitary Incident Of Assaulting Child Not “Child Abuse” Under Goa Children’s Act: Bombay High Court Allows Appeal, Acquits Two Women

The Court directed that “Criminal Application is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 30/4/2024 passed below Exhibit -1 in Regular Criminal Case No. 224/2018 (State V/s Mohd. Javed & Ors.) by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldhana is hereby quashed and set aside.”

“The proceeding bearing RCC No. 224/2018 is remanded back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldhana to reconsider the matter and by formulating his opinion on the basis of skeletal evidence led before him by the parties, and then if so necessary, by invoking the powers under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, commit the case to the Sessions Court.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. S. V. Sirpurkar, Advocate a/w Ms. Garima Jain, Advocate a/w Ms. Rohini Pande, Advocate

For the Respondents: Ms. D. I. Charlewar, APP for State; Mr. S. R. Charpe, Advocate for Intervener/Informant

Case Title: Mohammed Javed Abdul Wahab v State of Maharashtra

Neutral Citation: 2026: BHC-NAG:1577

Case Number: Criminal Application (APL) No. 911 of 2024

Bench: Justice Pravin S. Patil