Madras High CourtCRL RC/2087/2024dismissed

R.Radhakrishnanandam v. State Rep.By Its

2024-12-19Honourable Mr Justice Sunder Mohan11 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 16.12.2024 PRONOUNCED ON: 19.12.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.R.C.No.2087 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.16725 of 2024 R.Radhakrishnanandam ... Petitioner/Defacto complainant Vs.

1. State rep. by its Inspector of Police, ALGSC TEAM-17A, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai.

(Cr.No.617 of 2010) ... Respondent/Complainant

2. M.Palani

3. B.Nagarajan

4. P.Govindaraj

5. N.A.Thameem

6. B.Kanniappan

7. M.K.Raja

8. Loganathan

9. R.Kumari

10. Rajendran ... Respondent /Accused PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C, to to set aside the order dated 11.09.2024 passed in Crl.MP.No.55510/2024 in CC-4958/2023 before the learned Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate for exclusive trial of CCB cases (relating to cheating cases in Chennai), and CBCID Metro Cases, Chennai. Page No.1 of 11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Senthil Manohar For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar (for R1) Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the defacto complainant aggrieved by the order dated 11.09.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate for exclusive trial of CCB cases (relating to cheating cases in Chennai), and CBCID Metro Cases, Chennai, refusing to commit the case to the Court of Sessions.

2. The petitioner had lodged a complaint against the accused/respondents 2 to 10 and on investigation, the 1st respondent filed the final report on 15.05.2017 for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 r/w 34 and 120B of the IPC. The facts leading to the filing of the final report may not be necessary for the purpose of deciding this revision.

3. The defacto complainant filed the petition to assist the prosecution and thereafter, filed Crl.M.P.No.55510 of 2023, stating that since the learned Magistrate has no power to impose the punishment of Page No.2 of 11

life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years for the offence under Section 467 of the IPC, the learned Magistrate is not competent to try the said offence and sought for appropriate orders of the Magistrate.

4. The learned Magistrate rejected the petition stating that the schedule to the Criminal Procedure Code specifies that the offence under Section 467 of the IPC is triable by the Magistrate and if the Magistrate intends to impose higher punishment, the Magistrate may refer the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate in terms of Section 325 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the maximum sentence imposed under the Criminal Procedure Code for the offence under Section 467 of the IPC, is either life imprisonment or imprisonment upto ten years; that the Magistrate is empowered to award a sentence of three years imprisonment and in the event of the Magistrate concluding that higher punishment has to be imposed, then he can refer it to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who can impose a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment; and that since the offence alleged by the petitioner is serious, the accused are liable to be punished for more Page No.3 of 11

severe sentence and therefore, the Magistrate ought to have committed the case to the Sessions Court, which is empowered to impose the sentence prescribed for the offence under Section 467 of the IPC.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) per contra submitted that as per Section 26 and the First Schedule to the Cr.P.C., it is the Magistrate, who is empowered to try an offence under Section 467 of the IPC, though the offence is punishable with life imprisonment; that the learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in Ram Chandra Maity v. Sudhir Chandra Mondal and others, reported in 1977 Cri LJ 481, had noted this anomaly and had observed that this anomaly has to be rectified only by the Parliament; that the State of Madhya Pradesh had addressed this anomaly and amended the schedule to Cr.P.C., and stipulated that the offence under Section 467 of the IPC, is triable by the Sessions Court; and therefore submitted that the Courts have to follow the mandate of the Cr.P.C., and cannot make an amendment in the Schedule by a judicial order.

7. The imprisonment provided for the offence under Section 467 of the IPC is either life imprisonment or a sentence upto ten years of Page No.4 of 11

imprisonment. The learned Magistrate cannot impose a sentence beyond three years. If the learned Magistrate is of the view that he cannot pass the sentence sufficiently severe, he can forward the accused to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, to whom he is subordinate under Section 325(3) of the Cr.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom the proceedings are submitted, if he thinks fit, shall examine the parties and recall and examine the witnesses and take any further evidence and shall pass judgment, sentence or order in the case as he thinks fit, according to law.

8. As per Section 29(1), the Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot impose a sentence beyond a term of seven years. Therefore, if the Magistrate tries an offence under Section 467 of the IPC, the maximum sentence that can be imposed is only seven years, which is lesser the maximum sentence provided under Indian Penal Code. Thus, there is an anomaly in this regard. There are other offences, where the maximum sentence prescribed is beyond seven years and is triable by the Magistrate which are as follows:

SECTION OFFENCE PUNISHMENT TRIAL Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment Magistrate of the first class.

Page No.5 of 11

SECTION OFFENCE PUNISHMENT TRIAL means.

for 10 years and fine.

363A Kidnapping or obtaining the custody of a minor in order that such minor may be employed or used for purposes of begging.

Imprisonment for 10 years and fine.