Legal Reference Library

A full bench of Patna High Court in District Bar Association vs. State of Bihar, has deliberated on the difference between a Sessions Judge and Court of Session, a Sessions judge and an Additional/Assistant Sessions Judge. The bench comprising Chief Justice of Patna High Court IA Ansari, Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh and Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh, made this discussion while dealing with a public interest litigation by the district Bar Association which had challenged a circular issued by High Court wherein it had directed that the applications, seeking pre-arrest/ anticipatory bail, shall be filed before the Sessions Judge, who, shall, in turn, distribute such applications amongst the senior Additional Sessions Judges. According to the Bar Association, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, every Court of Session has been empowered to issue directions for pre-arrest/anticipatory bail and, hence, the circular is illegal. The bench observed that a Court of Session sh...

The Calcutta High Court, in M.K. Products vs. Blue Ocean Exports (P) Ltd. & Ors., has said that a complainant cannot challenge the order of acquittal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgement delivered by Justice Sankar Acharyya dealt with the question of whether an acquittal in a case of dishonour of cheque, instituted on a complaint, could be challenged at Sessions Court without the grant of special leave by the High Court. Relying on the Kerala High Court decision in Omana Jose vs. State of Kerala and Others (which in turn discusses the principles in case Subhash Chand vs. State (Delhi Administration), the court reached the decision to uphold the impugned order. The relevant observations from the Kerala High Court’s judgement in that matter which the Calcutta High Court relied upon were: After the introduction of the definition of ‘victim’ in Secti...

The case before the bench comprising of A.K. Sikri & R.K Agarwal,JJ was whether the Court of Sessions is empowered to take the cognizance of offence when a similar application to this effect was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate while committing the case to Sessions Court, taking cognizance of offence only under Section 306 IPC and specifically refusing to take cognizance of offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. The Court observed that normally, such a course of action would not be permissible. But referring to the present case, the court held that the power of Magistrate in refusing to take cognizance against the appellants is revisable by a superior Court, the Court of Sessions in this case, either on the revision petition that can be filed by the aggrieved party or even suo moto by the revisional Court itself. Also, it was not a case wherein the opportunity was not given to the other party to file a reply at the sessions Court against the order of Cognizance and the Cou...

The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with a Sessions Court Order which had taken cognizance of new offences and added new Accused under section 193 of Code of Criminal Procedure, though the Magistrate rejected the prayer at Committal Stage. Appellants are parents of a person who was accused of instigating his wife to suicide and was charge sheeted under Section 306 IPC. The complainants had filed an application before the Magistrate Court for taking cognizance against the appellants and their son under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. The Magistrate Court rejected their applications and committed the case to Sessions Court, where they again preferred the application. This application was allowed by the Sessions Court, and the High Court upon revision, refused to interfere. The appellants hence approached the Apex Court. Referring to Dharam Pal & Ors. v. State of Haryana, the court observed that , since the Court of Session is acting as the Court of original jurisdiction under Se...

It is “not legal and logical” to reject plea without giving any opportunity to a complainant to lead evidence, a Delhi court has observed while asking a magistrate to pass a reasoned order on a complaint against an IAS officer for allegedly using a false OBC certificate. Special judge Anju Bajaj Chandna said observations given by metropolitan magistrate in the order dismissing the complaint against the bureaucrat and others were “premature” and the complainant should have been given an opportunity to lead pre-summoning evidence in support of his plea. The court’s order came on a revision petition challenging the magisterial court’s last year order in which the plea seeking registration of FIR against the IAS officer and two others was dismissed. Delhi-based complainant Mahesh Kumar had alleged in his plea that the IAS officer had got into civil services on the basis of “false, forged and fabricated non-creamy layer OBC certificate” and his father had given a false statement in an...