This article has been written by Oishika Banerji of Amity Law School, Kolkata. This article discusses some notable case laws that concern proceeding commencement before the magistrate as under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 talks about the commencement of proceedings before magistrates which are spread over Sections 204 to 210. The case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Hazara Singh (1999) made it clear that where an accused is summoned by the magistrate, the proceedings will be commencing in accordance with this chapter, and thereafter, the magistrate cannot dismiss the complaint as under Section 203 of the Code. This article provides a detailed explanation of these sections by means of case laws so as to provide the readers with a procedural understanding.
Commencement of proceedings before magistrates
Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides the road following which commencement of proceedings before magistrates take place. The provisions talk about the cognizance of offences by magistrates. Before delving into the case laws, it is necessary to know which provision deals with what:
- Section 204: Issue of process.
- Section 205: Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused.
- Section 206: Special summons in cases of a petty offence.
- Section 207: Supply to the accused of copy of the police report and other documents.
- Section 208: Supply of copies of statements and documents to accused in other cases triable by Court of Session.
- Section 209: Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it.
- Section 210: Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence.
A list of notable judgments has been discussed hereunder for an accurate mastery of Chapter XVI of the Code.
Jacob Harold Aranha v. Vera Aranha (1979)
The Bombay High Court took a firm stand on Section 204 of the Code of 1973 in the well-known case of Jacob Harold Aranha v. Vera Aranha (1979). The Court observed that a magistrate has been vested with the legal duty to have a detailed analysis of the allegations and the evidence placed before the court in order to assure if at all a prima facie case exists or not. This needs to be carried out prior to issuing of summons under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The decision was accepted as a precedent in the case of Roshan Lal v. P Hemchandran (1996) where the Rajasthan High Court accepted that although issuing of summons to the accused is a subjective satisfaction of the magistrate, the same has to be exercised judiciously, in accordance with the law, and on the basis of sound reasoning.
Anil Saran v. State of Bihar (1996)
The Supreme Court of India while deciding on the case of Anil Saran v. State of Bihar (1996) reaffirmed the case of Jacob Harold Aranha v. Vera Aranha (1979). The Apex Court observed that for issuing a process under Section 204 of the Code, the only consideration that a magistrate should make is whether the allegations that have been made in the complaint against the accused make out a case in the very first impression thereby holding the accused liable, or not. The fact as to what defences are available to the accused are not matters that are to be considered by the magistrate in this stage.
Anam Charan Behera v. State (2002)
The Orissa High Court while deciding the case of Anam Charan Behera v. State (2002) discussed the power conferred on the magistrates under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Stating that the power is discretionary in nature, the Hon’ble High Court assured that Section 205 does not lay any hard and fast rule that needs to be applied by the magistrates while exercising the conferred power. This discretionary power needs to be exercised by the court after due acknowledgement of relevant circumstances such as the significant inconvenience that can be caused to the accused, his or her profession, etc. In the present case which was pending for over 16 years due to the absence of the accused, and the same could not be assured even after repeated warrants sent to him, the magistrate had dismissed the petition. It was held that the magistrate’s discretion was not improperly exercised in rejecting the petition in this case under Section 205 of the Code.
Kamala Shankar v. State of MP (1988)
The purpose of Section 206 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 was upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Kamala Shankar v. State of MP (1988). The Hon’ble High Court observed that the whole idea behind the provision is to facilitate speedy disposal of cases that are numerous in number but are of petty nature. In this case, where the accused was charged with a petty offence of overboarding the bus he was driving, his personal appearance at the hearing of the court was held to be unwarranted by its very nature.
Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra (1995)
Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an accused-friendly provision that mandates the magistrate to supply the accused with copies of police reports, and other documents, free of cost. The Bombay High Court upheld the objective of Section 207 of the Code in the well-known case of Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra (1995). In this dowry-death case, the accused was not furnished with a copy of the dying declaration of the deceased under Section 207 of the Code of 1973. Taking this into account, the Hon’ble High Court observed that Sections 162, 173(4), and 207 A (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 imposes a duty on the prosecution to provide copies as laid down under Section 207 because the valuable rights that the accused have under Section 162(1) can be implemented only by supplying copies to the accused.
Roxy v. State of Kerala (2000)
Section 204 read with Section 208 of the Code of 1973 provides that cases that have not been instituted on a police report are exclusively triable by the Court of Session, and the magistrate shall furnish the accused with the documents provided under Section 208 clauses (i),(ii), and (iii). The Supreme Court of India while deciding in the case of Roxy v. State of Kerala (2000) held that Section 208 is a mandatory provision, and the magistrate cannot exercise his discretion while providing the accused with the required documents.
Bajrang Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2003)
Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down the provision for the commitment of the case to the Court of Session when the offence is triable exclusively by it. The Rajasthan High Court observed the inter-relationship between Sections 207, and 209 of the Code in the well-known case of Bajrang Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2003).
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the magistrate can commit a case for trial to the Sessions Court only after arriving at the conclusion that the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court only. By this view, the Court made it clear that Sections 207, and 209 are not provisions made for facilitating the magistrate to wash off his duties of trying a case and burdening the same on the shoulder of the Sessions Court. Instead, it ensures that the case does not have to knock the doors of injustice to the parties of the same.
Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan (2013)
The Supreme Court of India in the 2013 case of Ajay Kumar Parmar v. the State of Rajasthan upheld the decision of the Rajasthan government made in the case of Bajrang Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2003). In the present case, the Apex Court was of the view that when it has been decided already that an offence is cognizable by the Sessions Court, then in such cases the magistrate cannot probe into the same case and discharge the accused in the case. The only concern of the magistrate should be as to whether the offence triable by the Sessions Court has been mentioned in the police report or not. If it is mentioned then the magistrate must commit such a case to the Court of Session.
Geevarghese v. Philipose (1987)
Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down the procedure that is to be followed when there is a complaint case, and police investigation in respect of the same offence. The Kerala High Court in the 1987 case of Geevarghese v. Philipose observed that if a cognizance of an offence was carried out initially on the basis of the police report, but subsequently on grounds of private complaint which led the Court to add the names of more accused which were initially absent, then such procedure will not be considered as an irregular one.
State of Kerala v. Intelligence Officer (2003)
The Karnataka High Court did not apply the doctrine of res judicata in the case of State of Kerala v. Intelligence Officer (2003) where the issue was concerning the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 which provides concurrent jurisdiction of various authorities to carry out an investigation. In this case, a prosecution that was launched by one authority was undertaken by another on the basis of a private complaint. The subsequent authority had sought a stay in the initial suit but the Court had found that both the suits were different because of which stay on the suit was granted.
Conclusion
As we come to the end of this article, what can be inferred is that the provisions which have been structured under Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are majorly accused-friendly provisions. The basic rights of the accused have been taken up seriously by this chapter, and have not been restricted only to these provisions but have been adopted by the entire Code. It is necessary to mention that the case laws that have been discussed on the basis of their ratio-decidendi, are not the only few cases that explain the provisions under Chapter XVI, but indeed the major ones.
References
- https://indianjudiciarynotes.com/notes/crpc/commencement-of-proceedings-before-magistrate/
- https://familydentalcare.org.uk/qrqh/site/commencement-of-proceedings-before-magistrate-e2685f
- http://www.oas.org/es/sla/dlc/mesicic/docs/mesicic5_svg_annex15.pdf
- https://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/VCPM/27354.htm
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.
