SUDHLR AND ORS. versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 813 · Decided: 02-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SUDHlR AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
FEBRUARY 2, 2001 
(K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 : 
Section 26-Sessions Judge - Cases exclusively triable by-Power of 
-Held: Sessions Judge has the power to try any offence under the /PC-It C 
is not necessary that the offence should be one exc/J1sively triable by a Court 
of Sessions. 
Section 228(1)-Scope and ambit of - Cross cases-Two cases arose 
out of the same incident-Both were commilted to the Sessions Court-One 
of the cases was transferred to Chief Judicial Magistrate as no offence D 
exclusively triable by Court of Sessions was found-Correctness of-Held: 
Where a case and counter case have been committed to the Sessions Court, 
one involving an offence exclusively triable by the Sessions Court and the 
other not involving such an offence, both the cases should be tried by the 
Sessions judge. 
Sections 209 and 323-Scope and ambit of-Cross cases-Held: Section 
323 does not make an inroad into section 209 as it covers those cases to 
which Sections 209 does not apply-Commitment can be under both the 
Section-But once committed procedure under Ch. XVIII of the Code must be 
followed-Hence, Magistrate can commit the cross case, not involving an 
offence exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, also to the Sessions 
Court. 
A case and counter case arising out of the same incident were committed 
to the Court of Sessions as both cases involved offences triable exclusively by 
Sessions Court. In the first case a char~e for offences including those triable 
exclusively by Sessions Court was framed. But in the second case no offence 
· y-
exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions was involved and, therefore, the 
Sessions Judge framed a charge and transferred the case to the Chief Judicial 
Magistrate for trial. 
The appellant-accused, in the first case, and the State, in the second 
813 
E 
814 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] I S.C.R. 
A case, filed revisions petition.before the High Court challenging the order of 
the Sessions Judge, which were dismissed. Hence this appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is a salutary practice, when two criminal cases relate to 
B the same incident, they are tried and disposed of by the same court by 
pronouncing judgments on the same day. [817-C-DI 
1.2. Under Section 26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 a 
Sessions Judge has the power to try any offence under the Indian Penal 
Code. It is not necessary for the Sessions Court that the offence should be 
C one exclusively triable by a Court ofSessions. [819-FI 
1.3. The emplo)'ment of the word "may" at one place and the word 
"shall'' at another place in Section 228(1) of the Code unmistakably indicates 
that when the offence is not triable exclusively by the Sessions Court it is not 
mandatory that he should order transfer of the case to the Chief Judicial 
D Magistrate after framing a charge. In situations where it is advisable for him 
to try such offence in his court, there is no legal obligation to transfer the 
case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. One of the instances for not making 
the transfer is when a case and counter case have been committed to the 
Sessions Court and one of those cases involves an offence exclusively triable 
E by the Sessions Court and the other does not involve any such offence. 
1820-C-DI 
F 
Nathi Lal v. State of U. P., [ 19901 Supp. SCC 145, relied on. 
In Re: Goriparthi Krishtamma, [19291 Mad Weekly Notes 881 and 
Krishna Pannadi '"Emperor, AIR j19301Mad190, approved. 
2. Section 323 of the Code does not make an inroad into Section 209 
because the former is intended to cover cases to which Section 209 does not 
apply. Hence, the Magistrate can exercise the special power conferred on 
him by virtue of Section 323 of the Code when he commits the cross case 
G also to the Court of Sessions. Commitment under Section 209 and 323 might 
be through two different channels, but once they are committed their 
subsequent flow could only be through the stream channelised by the 
-~ _ 
provisions contained in Chapter XVIII of the Code. j819-B-DI 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
H No.135of2001. 
SUDHIR v. STATE OF M.P. [THOMAS, .I.] 
815 
Froin the Judgment and Order dated 30.6.2000 of the Madhya Pradesh A 
High Court in Crl. R. No. 402 of2000. 
With 
Criminal Appeal No. 136 of200l. 
K.N. Shukla, S.K. Gambhir, Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Prashant Kumar, Uma 
Nath Singh, B.N. Shanna and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.