http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: P. C. GULATI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: LAJYA RAM KAPUR AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/08/1965

BENCH: DAYAL, RAGHUBAR BENCH: DAYAL, RAGHUBAR SARKAR, A.K. RAMASWAMI, V.

CITATION:  1966 AIR  595            1966 SCR  (1) 560

ACT: Code  of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), s. 526  (ii)- Transfer  of case from Magistrate’s court to  Sessions-Power of High Court.

HEADNOTE: When s. 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits  the Court of Session, from taking "cognizance of any offence  as a  court  of original jurisdiction" unless  the  accused  is committed  to  it  by a Magistrate or  there  is  any  other express  provision of the Code, on the question whether  the High  Court is competent under s. 526(1)(ii) of the Code  to transfer a case from the Court of a Magistrate to the  Court of a Sessions Judge, HELD  :  (Per  Sarkar  &  Dayal,  JJ.)  The  High  Court  is competent. Cognizance of an offence as a court of original jurisdiction means the initiation of proceedings for the first time in  a court and not in a subsequent inquiry or trial necessary for the  disposal of the case.  When a case is committed to  the Court  of Sessions, it proceeds with the trial of  the  case only when it considers the commitment good in law.  It is in this context that Sessions Court has to take ’cognizance’ of the  offence as a court or original jurisdiction and  it  is such  cognizance  that  is  referred  to  in  s.  193.   The provisions  of the various sections in Part B of Chapter  XV of the Code dealing with initiation of proceedings also make out  the  difference between the taking of cognizance  of  a case and the subsequent inquiry and trial of the offences of which cognizance has been LA-en. 1567 B, C, D; 568 Al There   are  no  reasons  which  could  have   induced   the legislature  to  contemplate tile limiting of cl.  (ii),  of sub-s. (1) of s. 526 to the transfer of cages from the court of  a  Magistrate to the court of any  other  Magistrate  of equal  or  superior jurisdiction.  Further, when  under  the Code the High Court is competent to transfer a case from the court  of  a  Magistrate  to itself  and  try  it  would  be incongruous to bold that the High Court is not competent  to Transfer a case to the Court of Sessions. [568 D-E] The  omission  to provide specifically the procedure  to  be followed in the trial of a case transferred to the Court  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

Sessions  by  the High Court in the exercise of  its  powers under s. 526 of the Code will not make the transfer illegal, when  the  language of cl. (ii) of sub-s.  (1)  confers  the power  on  the High Court of transferring a  case  from  the Court  of a Magistrate to a Court of superior  jurisdiction. There  is no difficulty in the Court of Sessions trying  the case  transferred to it in accordance with the provision  of Ch.   XXIII which deals with the procedure of trial&  before the  High  Courts  and Courts of  Sessions.   The  Court  of Session.-,  has  to follow the procedure laid down  in  this Chapter  so  far as that be applicable to the  cases  to  be tried by it.  The special procedure laid down for particular type  of  cases and proceedings will be  followed  in  those cases as special provisions over-ride general Provisions  of Chapter XXIII. [563 F; 564 C--E] Section 193, therefore, does not bar further proceedings  by the  Court  of Sessions in a case transferred to it  by  the High Court. [568 C] 561 Per Ramaswami, J. (Dissenting) : The High Court has no power to  transfer  a case from the Court of a Magistrate  to  the Court  of Sessions without a proper commitment  having  been made. [573 C-D] While  s. 526(2) is an express provision with regard to  the trial  of the case transferred by the High Court  to  itself from  any  other criminal court other than the  court  of  a Presidency  Magistrate,  section  526  does  not   expressly provide for the procedure to be followed by a Sessions Judge it, a case transferred to it by the High Court. it  follows, therefore, that the legislature has not enacted any  express provision  to the control within the meaning of  s.  193(1). [571 E-F] The  language of s. 526(1) (ii) cannot be read in  isolation and  cannot  be  given  effect  to  without  regard  to  the mandatory  provisions  of s. 193.  The  powers  of  transfer given  to  the  High  Court  under  s.  526(1)(ii)  must  be interpreted as not to conflict with the language of s.  193. [578 A-B]

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos.  86 and 88 of 1965. Appeals  by special leave from the judgment and order  dated March     13, 1964 of the Punjab High Court (Circuit  Bench) at Delhi  in Criminal Revision No. 30-D of 1964 and Criminal Misc. ....No. 63-D of 1964. S.N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder Narain, for  the appellants (in all the appeals). Ram Lal Anand, and J. B. Dadachanji, for respondents Nos.  1 and 2 (in all the appeals). R.N.  Sachthey,  for  respondent  No.  3.  (in  all   the appeals). The Judgment of Sarkar and Raghubar Dayal, JJ. was delivered by Dayal J. Ramaswami, J. delivered a dissenting Opinion. Ragubhar Dayal, J. The sole question which determines  these appeals  is  whether  the High Court  can  transfer  a  case pending  in  the Court of a Magistrate to the Court  of  the Additional Session Judge. It  is urged for the appellant, who had actually  moved  for the  transfer of the case, that the High Court has  no  such power.  The respondents contend that the High Court has such power. Chapter XLIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure,  hereinafter

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

called  the  Code. deals with transfer  of  criminal  cases. Section  526,  in that Chapter, empowers the High  Court  to pass  the following orders whenever it is made to appear  to the  High Court that the requirements of either  of  clauses (a) to (e) of sub-s. (1) hereof exists 562               "(i)  that  any offence be  inquired  into  or               tried by any Court not empowered under ss. 177               to 184 (both inclusive), but in other respects               competent to inquire into or try such offence;               (ii)that  any particular case or appeal,  or               class of cases orappeals,  be  transferred               from a Criminal Court subordinate toits               authority to any other such Criminal Court  of               equal or superior jurisdiction;               (iii) that  any particular case or  appeal  be               transferred to and...tried before itself; or               (iv)  that an accused person be committed  for               trial to itself or to a Court of Session."               The language of clause (ii) is wide enough  to               provide for an order transferring a case  from               the  Court  of  a Magistrate  to  a  Court  of               Session as both the Courts, are subordinate to               the  High Court and the Court of Session is  a               Court  superior in jurisdiction to that  of  a               Magistrate.               Reference may be made to s. 6 which reads               "Besides  the  High  Courts  and  the   Courts               constituted under any law other than this Code               for  the time being in force, there shall  be,               five  classes  of Criminal  Courts  in  India,               namely --               I.-Courts of Session;               II.-Presidency Magistrates;               III.-Magistrates of the first class;               IV.-Magistrates of the second class;               V.-Magistrates of the third class; It  is clear that the Courts are mentioned in the  order  of their  superiority  in respect of jurisdiction.  It  is  not urged  for  the appellant that the language of cl.  (ii)  if sub-s.  (1) of s. 526 does not give power to the High  Court to transfer the case from a Court of a Magistrate to that of a  Sessions Judge.  What is urged for the appellant is  that the provisions of sub-cl. (ii) should be so construed as  to limit its provisions to the transfer of cases from the Court of  a  Magistrate  to  another Court  of  a  Magistrate,  as otherwise  there would be difficulties in the trial  of  the case by the Sessions Court when it is transferred to it from -the Court of a Magistrate. 563 The first difficulty urged is that s. 193 of the Code  inter alia provides that except as otherwise expressly provided by the  Code  on by other law for the time being in  force,  no Court  of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as  a court  of original jurisdiction unless the accused has  been committed  to  it  by a Magistrate duly  empowered  in  that behalf; that there is no express provision in the Code which empowers the Court of Session to take cognizance of the case as  a Court of original jurisdiction when it be  transferred to  it  by  a High Court and that  therefore  the  Court  of Session is incompetent to take cognizance of such a case and try it. Another difficulty suggested is that neither s. 526 nor  any Other  provision of the Code provides for the  procedure  to be, followed by the Sessions Judge in the trial of the  case

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

transferred  to  it by a High Court and that  the  procedure laid  down for the trial of a case by the Court  of  Session will  not be suitable for the trial of the transferred  case as  s.  271  of the Code requires the Court  of  Session  to commence  the  trial by reading the charge, a  charge  which according to other provisions of the Code is to be framed by the Magistrate who commits the case. We do not consider any of these contemplated difficulties in the  trial of the transferred, case by the Court of  Session to be of any significance. We may deal with the second contention first.  The  omission to provide specifically the procedure to be followed in  the trial  of a case transferred to the Court of Session by  the High  Court in, the exercise of its powers under s.  526  of the  Code  will  not make the  transfer  illegal,  when  the language of cl. (ii) of sub-s. (1) confers the power on  the High  Court  of  transferring a case from  the  Court  of  a Magistrate  to the Court of superior jurisdiction,  which  a Court  of  Session  is.  Support  for  this  contention  was sought,  for the appellant, from sub-s. (2) of s. 526  which provides that when the High Court withdraws for trial before itself  any  case  from any Court other than a  Court  of  a Presidency  Magistrate, it shall, except as provided for  in s. 267, observe in such trial the same procedure which  that Court  would  have  observed if the case  had  not  been  so withdrawn.   If the withdrawal of the case is equivalent  to the  transfer of a case in exercise of powers  conferred  by cl.  (iii)  which  empowers  the High  Court  to  order  any particular  case  to  be transferred  to  and  tried  before itself,  the provision of sub-s. (2), though  providing  for the procedure to be followed by the High Court in the  trial of cases withdrawn from 564 the Court of a Magistrate other than a Presidency Magistrate does  not  provide for the procedure to be followed  by  the High  Court when it withdraws the case from the Court  of  a Presidency Magistrate.  It is clear therefore that the  mere omission  of the procedure to try a case withdrawn from  the Court of a Presidency Magistrate does not mean that the High Court  cannot withdraw a case from his Court in view of  the clear words of cl. (iii). There  is  no  difficulty in our opinion  in  the  Court  of Session trying the case transferred to it in accordance with the  provisions  of  Chapter  XXIII  which  deals  with  the procedure  of  trials  before  High  Courts  and  Courts  of Session.   The Court of Session has to follow the  procedure laid  down in this Chapter so far as that be  applicable  to the  cases to be tried by it.  This is clear not  only  from the  heading of the Chapter but also from the provisions  of s.  268 which require all trials before, a Court of  Session to be either by jury or by the Judge himself, and of s.  270 which   require  the  Public  Prosecutor  to   conduct   the prosecution  in every trial before a Court of  Session.   Of course,  special procedure laid down for particular type  of cases  and proceedings will be, followed in those  cases  as special provisions over-ride general provisions ,of  Chapter XXIII.   Such  special  provisions are to be  found  in  ss. 198B(5), 481. and 485A of the Code. Section  271 provides that when the Court. is ready to  com- mence  the  trial, the accused shall appear  or  be  brought before  it,  and the charge shall be read out in  Court  and explained to him, and he shall be asked whether he is guilty of the offence charged, ,or claims to be tried.  It does not say that the charge to be read must be the charge framed  by the  Magistrate who commit,; the case.  It is  the  Sessions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

Judge who is to read out the charge, on which the accused is to  be tried by him.  It may be that in the cases  committed to the Court of Session, the Sessions Judge mostly reads the same charge which has been framed by the Magistrate.  It  is however  open to him to reframe the charge and read out  the charge as framed by him.  In Practice the Session Court does amend  and  add to the charge before  proceeding  with  such cases  and it is the charge as amended by him which is  read out  to  the accused, the whole object of the  charge  being that the accused should know what offences he has to meet at the  trial.   The  Sessions  Judge  can  follow  a   similar procedure when a case is transferred to his Court after  the Magistrate has framed the charge.  ’When the Magistrate  has not  framed  a charge, the Sessions Judge can do so  on  the basis of the prosecution allegations.                             565 The other procedure for the trial of the accused is what  is to  be normally followed in the trial of warrant cases,  and is  laid  down  in ss. 286 to 292 and ss. 309  to  311.   In certain  cases  the  provisions of s.  287  and  288  cannot however  be complied with in the trial of cases  transferred to the Court of Session by the High Court if the accused has not  been  examined by the Committing Magistrate and  if  no evidence  is recorded by him.  Such a contingency can  arise in the trial of cases committed by a Magistrate in pursuance of  the provisions of s. 207A as it is not incumbent on  him to examine any witness or the accused before committing  him to  the Court of Session : Shri Ram v. State of  Maharashtra (1). The  provisions  of s. 291 which refer to the  summoning  of witnesses  for the accused may create a difficulty  inasmuch as  the accused is not given the right to have  any  witness summoned  except as provided in ss. 207A, 211 and 231.   The difficulty  would be more theoretical than practical, as  no Court  will  think of not affording an  opportunity  to  the accused  to  summon  defence evidence when in  view  of  the transfer of the case by the High Court the accused could not comply with such provisions which require him in  commitment proceedings to give a list of witnesses in the Court of  the Committing Magistrate. We   therefore  do  not  consider  that  there  arises   any difficulty  in  the  trial of the accused by  the  Court  of Session  in a case transferred to it by the High Court  from the Court of a Magistrate. We may now deal with the first objection which is really the main objection of the appellant about the trial of the  case by  a Sessions Judge on its being transferred to him by  the High Court.  Section 193 of the Code prohibits the Court  of Session  to  take cognizance of any offence as  a  Court  of original jurisdiction unless the accused is committed to  it by  a Magistrate or there is any other express provision  in the   Act.   Such  express  provisions,  according  to   the appellant,  are to be found in a few sections of  the  Code. Section   198B  empowers  the  Court  of  Session  to   take cognizance of an offence under s. 500 I.P.C. on a  complaint of the Public Prosecutor without the case being committed to it for trial. Section 480 empowers any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court to   take  cognizance  of  the offences  mentioned  in  that section and s. 485A  empowers  a  Criminal  Court  to   take cognizance of the offence committed by a witness on  account of  his non-attendance in obedience to a summons.  It is  to be noticed that ss. 408 and 485A (1) A. I. R. 1961 S. C. 674. 566

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

do not specifically mention the Court of Session, but  these provisions  can be availed of by that Court in view  of  the expression  ’criminal Court’ being wide enough to include  a Court of Session. Reference  was also made to ss. 437 and 478, but they  speak of  commitment  of the accused to the Court  of  Session  in certain circumstances. Section 193 and the other sections of the Code refer to  the taking of cognizance of an offence by the Court of  Session. The question is what amounts to the taking of cognizance  of an  offence  by a Court and whether the Court  of  Session’s proceeding with a case transferred to it by the High  Court, amounts to its taking cognizance of the offence under  trial in the case. Chapter  XV of the Code deals with jurisdiction of  criminal Courts  in inquiries and trials.  Part A consisting  of  ss. 177 to 189 deals with the place of inquiry or trial.   These sections  deal with the territorial jurisdiction of  various Courts to enquire into, or try offences.  Part B deals  with the  conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings  and therefore with the conditions governing the power of a Court to  commence, for the first time, proceedings in  connection with  offences about which the party aggrieved or the  State desires  to take action.  Part B of Chapter XV  consists  of ss. 190 to 199B. In R. R. Chari v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (1) this  Court approved  of the following observations of Das Gupta J.,  in Remembrancer  of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v.  Abani  Kumar Bannerjee (2) :               "What  is  taking  cognizance  has  not   been               defined  in the Criminal Procedure Code and  I               have  no desire to attempt to define  it.   It               seems  to me clear however that before it  can               be  said that any magistrate has taken  cogni-               zance of any offence under section 190(1) (a),               Criminal Procedure Code, he must not only have               applied  his  mind  to  the  contents  of  the               petition  but  he must have done  so  for  the               purpose  of proceeding in a particular way  as               indicated in the subsequent provisions of this               Chapter-proceeding   under  section  200   and               thereafter  sending it for inquiry and  report               under   section  202.   When  the   Magistrate               applies  his  mind  not  for  the  purpose  of               proceeding  under the subsequent  sections  of               this  Chapter, but for taking action  of  some               other kind, e.g.,               (1) [1951] S.C.R. 312.               (2) A. 1. R. 1950 Cal. 437.               567               ordering  investigation under section  156(3),               or issuing a search warrant for the purpose of               the  investigation, he cannot be said to  have               taken cognizance of the offence." When  the Sessions Court receives a case on transfer by  the High  Court it is not to consider whether it should  proceed or not with the case.  It has to proceed with the case as it has  been  transferred to it by the High  Court.   ’Mere  is therefore  no  occasion  for the Court of  Session  to  take cognizance  of  the  offence in the sense  that  it  has  to determine  whether  the proceeding should  be  initiated  in connection  with the offence or not.  The  proceedings  have been  already  initiated  by the Magistrate  and  have  been simply transferred to it.  It has simply to proceed with the inquiry  or  trial as the case may be as the case  has  been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

made over to it by the High Court. A consideration of the provisions of the various sections in Part B of Chapter XV of the Code dealing with initiation  of proceedings also makes out the difference between the taking of cognizance of a case and the subsequent inquiry and trial of the offences of which cognizance has been taken.  Section 190 provides that Magistrates can take cognizance of a  case in  either  of  the  three ways  mentioned  in  sub-s.  (1). Section  191 provides for the transfer or commitment of  the case  in  which the Magistrate has taken cognizance  of  the offence under sub-s. (1) (c) of s. 190, i.e., on information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his  own  knowledge or suspicion that an  offence  has  been committed,  if  the accused objects to being tried  by  that Magistrate.    The  provisions  of  this  section   make   a distinction  between the taking of cognizance of an  offence and  its subsequent trial by that Magistrate or  by  another Court.   Similarly,  s. 192 provides for the transfer  of  a case, of which the Magistrates mentioned in the section have taken cognizance for inquiry or trial, to another Magistrate subordinate  to  the particular  Magistrate.   The  language indicates  that  the Magistrate to whom the case  is  to  be transferred  has not to take cognizance of the  case  afresh but  has simply to proceed with the inquiry or trial of  the case.   Section 193 is the section which we have  considered and,  in the context of the various sections, the taking  of cognizance of an offence as a Court of original jurisdiction must  amount  to the initiation of the proceedings  for  the first  time in a Court and not in the subsequent enquiry  or trial  necessary  for the disposal of the case.   The  other sections  in this Part simply provide restrictions  for  the taking of cognizance of offences in certain circumstances. L7Sup./  65-8 568 When a case is committed to the Court of Session, the  Court of Session has first to determine whether the commitment  of the case is proper. If   it   be   of   opinion   that   the commitment  is  bad on a point of law, it has to  refer  the case  to  the  High Court which is competent  to  quash  the proceeding  under s. 215 of the Code.  It is only  when  the Sessions  Court considers the commitment to be good  in  law that it proceeds with the trial of the case.  It is in  this context  that the Sessions Court has to take  cognizance  of the  offence as a Court of original jurisdiction and  it  is such a cognizance which is referred to in s. 193. We are therefore of opinion that the further proceedings  by the Court of Session in a case transferred to it by the High Court are not barred by S. 193 of the Code. Further  it would be incongruous if the High Court  be  com- petent to transfer a case from the Court of a Magistrate  to itself and try it but it be not competent to transfer a case to  the Court of Session.  There does not appear to  be  any reason   which  would  have  induced  the   legislature   to contemplate the application of cl. (ii) of sub-s. (1) of  S. 526 to the transfer of cases from the Court of a  Magistrate to  the Court of any other Magistrate of equal  or  superior jurisdiction  and not to the Court of Session.  Clause  (iv) expressly mentions the power of the High Court to order com- mitment  of  an accused person for trial to itself or  to  a Court of Session.  Such an order can however be passed  only when  the  proceedings in the Court of the  Magistrate  have reached that stage when it be possible for the High Court to direct the committal of the accused to the Court of  Session or  to itself.  An order for the commitment of  the  accused cannot be passed at any earlier stage while the transfer  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

a  case  can be made at any stage at which the case  may  be when transfer is sought. Lastly,  reference may be made to s. 527 of the  Code  which empowers  the  Supreme Court to direct that  any  particular case or appeal be transferred from one High Court to another High Court or from a criminal Court subordinate to one  High Court  to  another  Criminal  Court  of  equal  or  superior jurisdiction   subordinate  to  another  High  Court.    The language  of the section empowers this Court to  transfer  a case from the Court of a Magistrate tinder one High Court to a   Court  of  another  Magistrate  of  equal  or   superior jurisdiction,  or  to  a Court of  Session,  subordinate  to another  High  Court.  This Court actually  transferred  one case  from  the  Court of a Magistrate to the  Court  of  an Additional Sessions Judge as is clear from the judgment of 569 this  Court in Harbajan Singh v. State(1).  It may  also  be mentioned  that  there  is  nothing  in  s.  527  about  the procedure  which the transferee Court has to adopt  for  the further  progress of the case.  Sub-s. (3) of s. 527  simply gives  an  option  to the transferee Court  to  act  on  the evidence  already recorded or partly so recorded and  partly recorded  by itself or to resummon witnesses and  recommence the inquiry or trial. We are therefore of opinion that the High Court is competent under s. 526 ( 1 ) (ii) of the Code to transfer a case  from the  Court  of  a Magistrate to the Court  of  the  Sessions Judge. The order under appeal in Cr.  A. 88 of 1965 dated March 13, 1964,  transferring the case to the Court of the  Additional Sessions  Judge is therefore correct.  We therefore  dismiss this appeal.  Cr. A. 86 of 1965 is also against the order of the  High Court dated March 13, 1964 allowing  the  revision against the order of the Sessions Judge refusing to transfer the case from the Court of the Magistrate.  That order being correct, we dismiss Cr.  A. 86 of 1965. Cr.  A.  87 of 1965 is against the order of the  High  Court refusing  to  review its order of transfer dated  March  13, 1964.  That appeal is therefore dismissed as infructuous. Ramaswami,  J. I regret that I do not agree to the  judgment pronounced by my learned brother Dayal, J. The appellant, P. C. Gulati filed a criminal complaint under s. 500, Indian Penal Code against the respondents Lajya  Ram Kapur  and  Diwan  Chand  Kapur in  the  Court  of  the  Sub Divisional  Magistrate, New Delhi.  Later on, the  appellant made an application under s. 528, Criminal Procedure Code to the Sessions Judge praying for the transfer of the case from the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate to another  Court of   competent   jurisdiction,  but  the   application   was dismissed.   The  appellant  thereafter  filed  a   Revision Petition, Criminal Revision no. 30-D/64 in the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court against the order of the  Sessions, Judge  refusing  transfer of the case.  The  appellant  also filed  an application, Criminal Miscellaneous 63-D  of  1964 under s. 526, of the Criminal Procedure Code in the  Circuit Bench  of the Punjab, High Court for transfer of  the  case. On  March  13, 1964 the learned Chief Justice  of  the  High Court allowed the Revision Petition and also the application under s. 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code and  transferred the Criminal case to the Court of Sri (1)  [1965] 3 S.C.R. 535. 570 P.   N.  Thukral,  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Delhi   for disposal.   The appellant then realised that the  Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi had no jurisdiction to try and dispose

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

of the Criminal Petition in view of the provisions of s. 193 (1 ) of the Criminal Procedure Code and therefore applied to the  Punjab  High  Court  under s.  561-A  of  the  Criminal Procedure  Code praying that the Criminal complaint  may  be transferred to a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction.  This application  was dismissed by the learned Chief  Justice  of the  Punjab High Court on March 12, 1965 on the ground  that the  High Court had no power to review its  previous  order. Criminal  Appeals  86 & 88 of 1965 are brought,  by  special leave,  against  the  order of the  learned  Chief  Justice, Punjab High Court dated March 13, 1964 in Criminal  Revision no.   30-D/64  and  Criminal  Miscellaneous  63-D  of   1964 transferring  the complaint to the Court of  the  Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi for disposal.  Criminal appeal no.  87 of  1965 is brought, by special leave, against the order  of the learned Chief Justice, Punjab High Court dated March 12, 1965 refusing -to review his previous order dated March  13, 1964. The first question arising for determination in this case is -whether   the   Additional  Sessions   Judge,   Delhi   has jurisdiction to try the Criminal case filed by the appellant without  any  order of commitment of the  respondents  by  a competent  Magistrate.   Section  193(1)  of  the   Criminal Procedure Code states :               "193.   (1)  Except  as  otherwise   expressly               provided by this Code or by any other law  for               the  time being in force, no Court of  Session               shall  take  cognizance of any  offence  as  a               Court  of  original  jurisdiction  unless  the               accused   has  been  committed  to  it  by   a               Magistrate duly empowered in that behalf."               Section  526  of the Criminal  Procedure  Code               states               "526. (1) Whenever it is made to appear to the               High Court :-               (a)that a fair and impartial inquiry or  trial               cannot   be   had  in   any   Criminal   Court               subordinate thereto, or ...................               (e)that  such  an order is expedient  for  the               ends  of  justice,  or  is  required  by   any               provision of this Code; it may order-                (i).........................................               (ii)that  any  particular case or  appeal,  or               class of cases or appeals, be transferred from               a Criminal Court subordi-               571               nate  to  its  authority  to  any  other  such               Criminal   Court   of   equal   or    superior               jurisdiction; On  behalf of the respondents it was submitted by Mr.  Anand that  the  Additional  Sessions Judge  has  jurisdiction  to proceed  with the trial of the Criminal cam in view  of  the order  of transfer made by the High Court and the  procedure to  be  followed  should  be  that  of  a  warrant  case  as contemplated  by  s. 526(2) of the Criminal  Procedure  Code which states :               "526.  (2) When the High Court  withdraws  for               trial  before itself any case from  any  Court               other   than   the  Court  of   a   Presidency               Magistrate,  it shall, except as  provided  in               section  267, observe in such trial  the  same               procedure which that Court would have observed               if the case had not been so withdrawn." It was conceded by the learned Counsel that the provision of s.  526 (2) applies only to a case which has been  withdrawn

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

by  the  High Court for trial before itself from  any  other Criminal  Court subordinate to it but it was contended  that the  principle  of that sub-section should apply also  to  a criminal   case  transferred  by  the  High  Court  to   the Additional  Sessions Judge from the Court of  a  Magistrate. In my opinion, there is no warrant for this argument.  It is manifest that s. 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not expressly  provide for the procedure to be followed  by  the Additional Sessions Judge in a case of this description.  It follows,  therefore,  that for the trial of a case  of  this description  the  legislature has not  enacted  any  express provision to the contrary within the meaning of s. 193 (1 ), Criminal   Procedure  Code.   This  view  is  supported   by reference to s. 526 (2), Criminal Procedure Code which is an express  provision  with  regard  to the  trial  of  a  case transferred  by  the  High Court to itself  from  any  other Criminal  Court  other  than  the  Court  of  a   Presidency Magistrate.  Reference should also be made to s. 198B of the Criminal Procedure Code which states :               "98B.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in               this  Code,  when any  offence  falling  under               Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (Act  XLV               of   1860).   (other  than  the   offence   of               defamation by spoken words) is alleged to have               been  committed against the President, or  the               Vice-President, or the Governor or  Rajpramukh               of a State, or a Minister, or any other public               servant   employed  in  connection  with   the               affairs of the Union or of a State, in respect               of his conduct in the discharge of his                572               public functions, a Court of Session may  take               cognizance   of  such  offence,  without   the               accused being committed to it for trial,  upon               a  complaint  in writing made  by  the  Public               Prosecutor.,               (2)Every  such complaint shall set  forth  the               facts  which constitute the  offence  alleged,               the  nature  of such offence  and  such  other               particulars  as are reasonably  sufficient  to               give  notice  to the accused  of  the  offence               alleged to have been committed by him               (3).......................................               (4)No  Court of Session shall take  cognizance               of  an offence under sub-section  (1),  unless               the  complaint is made within six months  from               the  date on which the offence is  alleged               to have been committed.               (5)When the Court of Session takes  cognizance               of  an  offence under sub-section  (1),  then,               notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  this               Code, the Court of Session shall try the  case               without  a jury and in trying the case,  shall               follow the procedure prescribed for the  trial               by  Magistrates  of warrant  cases  instituted               otherwise  than  on a police  report  and  the               person against whom the offence is alleged  to               have been committed shall, unless the Court of               Session, for reasons to be recorded  otherwise               directs,  be  examined as a  witness  for  the               prosecution.                ........................................... There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code similar to S. 198B or s. 526(2) with respect to the mode of trial of the  Criminal  cases which are transferred direct  from  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

Court of the Magistrate to the Court of Additional  Sessions Judge  without  an order of commitment being made.   In  the absence  of any express provision it must be held  that  the Court  of Additional Sessions Judge has no  jurisdiction  to proceed  with  the trial of a Criminal case which  has  been transferred to it by the High Court. If this view is right it follows that the High Court is  not competent to transfer the Criminal case from the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate’s Court to that of the  Additional Sessions  Judge,  Delhi under the provisions of s.  526  (1) (ii)  of  the  Criminal Procedure Code.   The  argument  was stressed by Mr. Anand on behalf of the respondents that  the language  of  S. 526, Criminal Procedure Code  contained  no limitation and that it was open 573 to  the High Court "to transfer any particular case  from  a Criminal  Court  subordinate to its authority to  any  other Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction".  I do not consider that there is any justification for this  argument. The  language of s. 526(1) (ii) cannot be read in  isolation and  cannot  be  given  effect  to  without  regard  to  the mandatory  provision  of s. 193 of  the  Criminal  Procedure Code.   On the contrary, the power of transfer given to  the High  Court under s. 526(1) (ii) must be so  interpreted  as not  to  conflict  with the language  of  s.  193,  Criminal Procedure  Code.   In  other  words,  the  language  of   s. 526(1)(ii)  must be restricted so as to be  consistent  with and  be  harmonious with the requirements of s. 193  of  the Criminal  Procedure  Code, I am accordingly of  the  opinion that  the High Court had no power to transfer  the  criminal proceedings  in the present case from the Court of  the  Sub Divisional  Magistrate  to  the  Court  of  the   Additional Sessions  Judge without a proper order of  commitment  being made.  The order of the learned Chief Justice of the  Punjab High Court dated March 13, 1964 is erroneous in law and must be accordingly set aside. For  the  reasons  expressed I set aside the  order  of  the learned  Chief Justice of the Punjab High Court dated  March 13,  1964 and in its place I direct that the  Criminal  case filed by the appellant should be transferred to the Court of any  other  1st Class Magistrate stationed at  Delhi  to  be selected  by  the learned Chief Justice of the  Punjab  High Court  under s. 526(1)(iv) of the Criminal  Procedure  Code. Criminal appeals nos. 86 and 88 of 1965 are accordingly allowed In  view  of this order Criminal Appeal no. 87 of  1965  has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.                            ORDER In  accordance  with the majority judgment the  appeals  are dismissed. 574