LexRAMESH KUMAR SONI versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 1129 RAMESH KUMAR SONI v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2013) FEBRUARY 26, 2013 [T.S. THAKUR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure (Madhya Pradesh A B Amendment) Act 2007: C First Schedule to Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Amendment - Offences punishable u/ss 467, 468 and 471 made triable by Court of Session in State of Madhya Pradesh - Offence committed prior to amendment but charge-sheet D filed after the amendment came into force - Held: Magistrate on receipt of a charge-sheet which was tantamount to institution of a case against the appellant was duty bound to commit the case to the Court of Session as three of the offences with which he was charged were triable only by Court E of Session - Apart from the fact that as on the date the amendment came into force no case had been instituted against the appellant nor the Magistrate had taken cognizance against the appellant, any amendment shifting the forum of the trial had to be on principle retrospective in F nature in the absence of any indication in the Amendment Act to the contrary - Appellant could not claim a vested right of forum for his trial for, no such right is recognised - Judgment of Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court overruled - Prospective overruling of judgment - Retrospective operation of amendment shifting the forum - Code of Crimin.a.I G Procedure, 1973 - First Schedule as amended in State of Madhya Pradesh. By the Code of Criminal Procedure (Madhya Pradesh 1129 H 1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R. A Amendment) Act of 2007, the first Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was amended w.e.f. 22.2.2008 and, among others, offences punishable u/ss 467, 468 and 471 IPC were made triable by the Court of Session in State of Madhya Pradesh instead of a Court B of Magistrate of First Class. Consequently, the Judicial Magistrates, First Class committed to the Court of Session all cases involving the relevant offences. On reference made by a Sessions Judge, a full Bench of the High Court1 held that all cases pending before the Court c of Judicial Magistrate First Class as on 22.2.2008 remained unaffected by the amendment and were triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. The Court further held that all such cases as were pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class and had been committed 0 to the Court of Session would be sent back to the Judicial Magistrate First Class in accordance with law. Relying upon the said decision the appellant, against whom a case for offences punishable u/ss 408, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC was registered, filed an application before the trial court seeking a similar direction for E remission of the case for trial by a Judicial Magistrate. The case of the appellant was that though the police had not filed a charge-sheet against the appellant and the investigation in the case was pending as on the date the amendment came into force, the appellant had acquired F the right of trial by a forum specified in Schedule I of the 1973 Code and any amendment shifting the forum of trial to the Court of Session was not attracted. The trial court held that since no charge-sheet had been filed before the Magistrate as on the date the amendment came into force, G the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant. 1. Re. Amendment of First Schedule of Criminal Procedure Code by Criminal H Procedure Code (M.P. Amendment) Act, 2007 : 2008 (3) MPLJ 311. RAMESH KUMAR SONI v. STATE OF MADHYA 1131 PRADESH In the instant appeal filed by the accused the A question for consideration before the Court was: "whether the amendment is prospective and will be applicable only to offences committed after the date the amendment was notified or would govern cases that were pending on the date of the amendment or may have been B filed after the same had become operative". Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide any definition of institution of a case. It is, C however, trite that a case must be deemed to be instituted only when the court competent to take cognizance of the offence alleged therein does so. The cognizance can, in turn, be taken by a Magistrate on a _complaint of facts filed before him which constitutes such an offence. It ma
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.