TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Magistrate retained any role after receiving a police report in a case triable exclusively by the Court of Session, and whether he could summon persons shown in column 2 of the police report if he disagreed with the final report; (ii) Whether, after committal, the Court of Session could take cognizance under Section 193 and summon persons not sent up by the police without waiting for the stage under Section 319.
Issue (i): Whether the Magistrate retained any role after receiving a police report in a case triable exclusively by the Court of Session, and whether he could summon persons shown in column 2 of the police report if he disagreed with the final report.
Analysis: The scheme of Chapter XIV of the Code was held to permit the Magistrate to do more than mechanically commit the case. On receipt of a police report under Section 173(3), if the Magistrate disagreed with the report, he could either act on a protest petition or issue process and summon persons shown in column 2. If satisfied that a prima facie case existed, he could proceed against such persons and, where the offence was triable by the Court of Session, commit the case accordingly. The Magistrate was therefore not reduced to a purely ministerial role.
Conclusion: The Magistrate did have a role to play and could summon persons named in column 2 if he disagreed with the police report.
Issue (ii): Whether, after committal, the Court of Session could take cognizance under Section 193 and summon persons not sent up by the police without waiting for the stage under Section 319.
Analysis: Section 193 was construed to mean that, once a case is committed, the Court of Session assumes original jurisdiction and may take cognizance of the offence. Cognizance of an offence can be taken only once, and it need not be postponed until evidence is recorded for the purpose of Section 319. The view that the Session Court had to wait for Section 319 was rejected, and the contrary view in Ranjit Singh was held not to state the law correctly. The Court approved the principle in Kishun Singh that the Session Court may summon persons whose complicity is apparent from the material on record at the stage of committal.
Conclusion: The Court of Session could summon such persons under Section 193 after committal and was not required to wait for Section 319.
Final Conclusion: The law was settled in favour of the Magistrate having a limited but real role at the pre-committal stage and the Court of Session having power, upon committal, to summon additional persons as accused on the materials transmitted with the record.
Ratio Decidendi: In a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Magistrate may, on disagreeing with the police report, summon persons shown in column 2 and commit the case, and the Court of Session, after committal, may take cognizance under Section 193 and summon additional accused without waiting for Section 319.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
