Separate Courts Of Law Cannot Take “cognizance” Twice For Different Offences Against The Same Accused.

CAUSE TITLE:

Laxman Singh Bunty and Ors. V. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

DATE OF ORDER:

23 April 2024

JUDGE(S):

Single Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand

PARTIES:

Petitioner: Laxman Singh Bunty and Ors.

Respondent: State of Rajasthan and Anr.

SUBJECT:

The Single bench of the Hon’ble Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, hereby revoked an order from February 2019 that had already taken action, against petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 a second time despite having already done so on 5th October 2018. Justice Dhand upheld the order concerning petitioner Nos. 4 to 9. This ruling was made based on the interpretation of Sections 193 and 209 of the CrPC. Although the Court of Sessions has the authority to take action under Section 193 after receiving a case from the Magistrate it does not allow for actions, for the offence. Hence the second action taken against petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 was considered unsustainable. Furthermore, the judgment instructed the trial court to issue warrants of arrest warrants for petitioner Nos. 4 to 9.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

• Section 193 – Cognizances of Offences by Courts of Sessions – This section specifically states that unless a magistrate formally sents a case to the sessions court, the sessions court cannot hear a criminal case at its discretion. 
• Section 209 – Commitment of case to Court of Session when the offence is triable exclusively by it – This Section states that if an accused person appears before the court of magistrates because of a police report and if the magistrate seems to believe that the offence falls under the jurisdiction of higher court then the magistrate will inform the public prosecutor that the case has been sent to the higher court.

The Indian Penal Code

• Section 307 – Attempt to Murder – Whoever does any act with intention or knowledge under which that act caused death, that person would be guilty of ‘Murder’, and shall be imprisoned for a term which could extend to ten years and also be liable to fine. 
• Section 308 – Attempt to commit culpable homicide – Whoever does any act knowing it could cause death, but not intending to commit murder could be guilty of culpable homicide and shall be imprisoned for three years or a fine or both. 
• Section 323 – Punishment for Voluntarily Causing Hurt – Anyone who intentionally caused harm to another person (except in situations mentioned under section 334), can be punished with up to one year in prison and shall be liable for a fine. 
• Section 325 – Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt – Anyone who causes ‘grievous’ harm to another person  (except in situations mentioned under section 335), can be punished with up to seven years and shall be liable for a fine. 
• Section 341 – Punishment for wrongful restraint – Anyone who unlawfully retrains another person can be punished for up to one month and shall be liable for a fine. 

BRIEF FACTS:

• A complaint led to an FIR at Mansarovar Police Station, Jaipur, after an investigation by the police only Laxman Singh, Devi Singh and Varun Singh (hereby referred to as Petition 1 to 3) were charged by the police under sections 323, 341, 325, 308 and 379 of IPC and was mentioned under the charge sheet by the police however after the thorough investigation police did not find any involvement of the remaining accused Petitioner 4 to 9 and also they were not mentioned in the charge sheet that was filed. 
• The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of these charges against the petitioners 1 to 3 on 5.10.2018 and since the offence under Section 308 of IPC falls under the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, the case was transferred to the Session Judge, who further delegated it to the Additional Sessions Judge. 
• After the case was presented, the Additional Sessions Judge scheduled it for framing charges. During this period, the complainant filed an application under Section 193 of CrPC to take cognizance against all the accused including Petitioner No. 1 to 3 and Petitioner No. 4 to 9 who were not charged for offences under sections 148, 323, 341, 325, 379, 307 read with IPC section 149 of IPC. 
• The application was granted on 11.02.2019, acknowledging all accused that is (Petitioner 4 to 9). Aggrieved by this the petitioners approached the Hon’ble High Court questioning the validity and legality of the impugned order stated above passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. 

QUESTIONS RAISED:

• Whether the order dated February 11, 2019, issued by the Additional Sessions Judge in Jaipur Metropolitan regarding the sessions case can be challenged for its legality and validity of the order. Specifically validity of the order through revisional jurisdiction under sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC. 
• Whether two separate courts respectively can take cognizance twice against the petitioner 1 to 3?
• Whether cognizance can be taken against Petitioners 4 to 9 who were not charge-sheeted?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

• The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner vehemently submitted that the cognizance was already taken against the Petitioner 1 to 3 by the magistrate. In light of this, the counsel contends that there was no justification for the additional sessions judge to take cognisance against them for additional offences under section 307 and other provisions of the IPC. 
• It was argued before the court by the counsel that thorough investigation by the police and that they did not find any involvement of the accused petitioner no 4 to 9, the counsel contends that there was insufficient evidence to justify the cognizance taken against them. 
• The counsel contends that the Additional Sessions Judge did not wait until the stage of section 329 of the CrPC “which allows for the addition of accused persons during the trial of the evidence implicating them emerges.” 

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

• The counsel appearing for the respondent contended that under CrPC, “cognizance is taken off the offence and not specifically of the offenders”, The counsel argues that an ample amount of evidence exists on record against all the accused under various sections of the IPC. 
• The counsel contended that based on statements from the eyewitnesses along with medical reports that were presented as evidence and prima facie case was established against all the accused.
• The counsel contended that the additional sessions judge rightly allowed the respondent's application under Section 193 CrPC given the evidence available against all accused. 

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

• The single bench of Justice Dhand found that “the restrictions on the powers of Court of Sessions, including that of the Additional Sessions Judge, would get lifted as in that event the Court of Sessions/Additional Sessions Judge would exercise such power as a Court of “original jurisdiction”. But a conjoint reading of Section 193 and 209 Cr.P.C., would make it clear that the situation wherein part cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate and part cognizance has been taken by the Additional Sessions Judge cannot be held to be legally permissible” 
• The judge also found that even if the Additional Sessions Judge had the authority to exercise the power of original jurisdiction when the case was presented before the magistrate to the court of sessions, which took fresh cognizance against petitioner 1 to 3 under section 307 of IPC was not legally permissible. 
• Wherein the judgement categorically upheld the validity of the “impugned order” concerning petitioners 4 to 9, whereas the court contended that prima facie evidence existed against them under section 193 of CrPC, and not waiting for the provisions outlined in section 319 of CrPC. 
• The court cited the apex court judgements to support their decision, emphasizing that the court of sessions has the authority to cognizance against petitioners not charged by the investigation authorities in the charge sheet. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the judgement analyzed the legal precedents provided by the CrPC and relevant case laws to determine the legality of the “impugned order”. While the single bench of Justice Dhand set aside the order concerning petitioners 1 to 3 due to legal impermissibility, it upheld the order concerning petitioners 4 to 9 based on the prima facie evidence that was presented and appeared before the court. This decision reflects the court's commitment to categorically upholding legal principles and ensuring that justice.