Sessions trial procedure must follow Chapter XVIII after commitment; pre-charge evidence is impermissible in such cases.

Where a complaint discloses at least one offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session, commitment under Section 209 of the Code requires the Sessions Court to proceed as a sessions trial under Chapter XVIII. The Code does not permit the Sessions Court to treat the matter as a warrant case by recording pre-charge evidence or by sending it back to the Magistrate for warrant-case style inquiry. The procedure adopted in that matter was therefore held to be illegal, and the remand order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether, where the complaint included an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session along with other offences, the case after commitment could be proceeded with as a warrant case by recording pre-charge evidence before the Sessions Court instead of proceeding under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Once the Magistrate took cognizance and, upon appearance of the accused, committed the matter because one of the offences was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the statutory scheme required the Sessions Court to proceed under Chapter XVIII. The Code does not contemplate recording pre-charge evidence in such a sessions trial. The procedure of sending the matter back to the Magistrate for warrant-case style inquiry was inconsistent with the mandate of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the settled structure of trial before the Court of Session.

Conclusion: The procedure adopted by the Sessions Court was illegal. The order remanding the case to the Magistrate was set aside and the petition was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a complaint discloses at least one offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the case must proceed as a sessions trial after commitment, and no pre-charge evidence can be recorded as in a warrant-case inquiry.

---