Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court laid down the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the Courts and the power of the Magistrate to take cognizance.   
• The judgment was delivered by Justice NV Ramana and Justice S Abdul Nazeer. 

Facts 

• The Appellant filed complaint before the police station under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and under Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 
• The case of the appellant is that one Smt. Vidhyabai and others sold disputed land to Respondent No. 1 and got the property of the appellant mutated by committing fraud and forgery. 
• Further, it was alleged that the respondents had threatened the appellant with dire consequences and swore at them with filthy language intended to belittle his caste/tribe. 
• The police station did not take any action on the complaint and hence the appellant approached the Judicial Magistrate under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
• Findings of Lower Courts: 
  • The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class dismissed the criminal complaint on the ground that there was no sufficient proof. 
  • Aggrieved by the above, the appellant approached the Addl. District and Sessions Judge by way of criminal revision.  
  • The Sessions judge concluded that the lower Court did not appreciate the facts as well as law and remanded the case back to the Court of Judicial Magistrate on 07.12.2012. 
  • On remand the Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences mentioned by order dated 23.01.2013. 
  • Aggrieved by the remand order the respondent dated 07.12.2012 and the order of Magistrate dated 23.01.2013 the respondent filed revision before the High Court. 
  • The High Court allowed the revision and quashed the complaint on the ground that the revisional Court could not have taken cognizance on 23.01.2013 as the same was in violation of Section 398 of CrPC. 

Issue Involved  

• What is the scope revisional jurisdiction under CrPC and whether remand order passed by the Magistrate is legal or not? 
• Whether the order of the Learned Magistrate taking cognizance is legal or not? 

Observations 

• With Respect to issue (i): 
  • The Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction: 
    • The revisional jurisdiction is exercised by the High Court and the Court of Session and the dismissal of complaint under Section 203 of CrPC may be assailed in a criminal revision under Section 397 of CrPC. 
    • Section 397 of CrPC empowers the Sessions Court to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any subordinate Criminal Court situate within its jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such subordinate Court. 
    • The extent of revisionary power is provided under Section 399 read with Section 401 of CrPC. 
    • Section 398 only deals with the distinct power to direct further inquiry whereas Section 397 read with Section 399 and Section 401 confers power on the revisionary authority to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any findings, sentence or order. 
    • The powers of revisionary Court have to be understood in consonance with Sections 398, 399 and 401 of CrPC. 
  • Application of the above to the present facts: 
    • The Court held that the High Court came to an erroneous conclusion that the Sessions Court had itself taken cognizance of the matter. 
    • On the perusal of the Sessions Court judgment it can be seen that the Sessions Court did not pass an order taking cognizance. 
    • Rather, the order of Sessions Court should only be construed as a remand order for further inquiry. 
    • The observations of the Sessions Court were only justification for remand and did not amount to taking cognizance. 
    • The Court held that the High Court quashed the complaint itself on wrong interpretation of law and hence the order of the High Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.  
• With Respect to issue (ii): 
  • The standard required by the Court while taking cognizance 
    • The Court has in the case of Subramaniam Swamy v. Manmohan Singh & Another (2012) held that the word ‘cognizance’ in legal parlance means taking judicial notice by the Court of law on a cause or matter presented before it so as to decide whether there is any basis for initiating proceedings. 
    • At the stage of taking cognizance the consideration should not be whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. 
    • At the stage of taking cognizance the Magistrate is also not required to elaborate reasons but the order should reflect independent application of mind by the Magistrate to the material placed before him. 
  • Application of the above principles on the facts of the case 
    • The Court held that it is apparent from the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance that the Learned Magistrate had observed that the Sessions Court has already made out a prima facie case. 
    • The Court held that the above finding would be difficult to sustain as the revisional Court had only observed certain aspects in furtherance of remanding the matter.  
    • The Magistrate was, however, expected to apply his independent mind while taking cognizance.  
• Hence, the Court in this case allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. 
• Accordingly, the Court held that the complaint should be considered by the trial Court afresh. 

Conclusion 

• The Court in this case discussed in detail the power of revisional Courts.  
• Further, the Court also reiterated the well settled principle that while taking cognizance the Magistrate should apply his mind, and the order of cognizance should reflect independent application of mind by the Magistrate.