Does the word Magistrate in section 457 CrPc also include Session Judge?

Dear sh. assumi ji,



Please review Law Commission Resport #: 154 Vol. 1 as well as review weblink https://delhicourts.nic.in/CrPC.htm

Yes, Sessions Judge takes charge of a Magistrate in S. 347 CrPC is what I feel.

Rgds,

D. Arun Kumar, New Delhi

Thank you Dr.Arun. Lets see what other members will say on this.

bare reading of s. 457 indicates that it makes distinction between magistrate and criminal court. under this section order can be passed by magistrate when seizure of property by any police officer is reported to magistrate and when  such property is not produced before criminal court during an inquiry or trial.

anology can be taken from s. 193 of the code regarding which the supreme court has held in several cases rhat special judge/sessions judge can not directly take the cognizance without being committed by the magistrate.

The terms "magistrate" and "sessions judge" are interchangeable and the intention of parliament is clear that u/s.457 (Return of Property seized) a petition may be moved before the criminal court dealing with the case concerned. In criminal cases triable by a magistrate (e.g., s.420, etc., I.P.C. offences), an accused can file a petition u/s.457 Cr.P.C. before the magistrate for return of his seized property. In criminal cases triable exclusively by sessions judge (e.g., s.307, etc. I.P.C. offences), an accused can file the petition u/s.457 Cr.P.C. for return of his seized property. It is simple like using "he" in a statute which includes "she" also. In other words, if the property is seized by the police in a Sec.307 I.P.C. case, which is dealt with by the sessions judge, can an accused go before the magistrate and file a petition u/s.457 Cr.P.C. because the said section concerns only magistrates which is legally not maintainable?