Back
2018 Supreme(MP) 694
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Smt. Anjuli Palo, J.
Rajesh Gupta v. State of M.P.
Criminal Revision No. 2893 of 2018 (J); Decided on 13. 8.2018*
P.S. Tomar for applicant; Vijay Soni for respondent/State.
Headnote:Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 392 -- amended on 14.2.2008 -- cases already pending before Magistrate prior to this date -- still triable by Magistrate -- committal of case by Magistrate to Sessions Court -- not sustainable in law -- set aside -- matter remanded to Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class. 2013 (2) JLJ 207 (SC) followed. 2014 (II) MPWN 308 relied on. [Paras 1 & 4
naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 392 & 14-2-2008 dks la'kksf/kr & bl fnukad ds iwoZ eftLVªsV ds le{k igys ls gh yafcr ekeys & eftLVªsV }kjk gh fopkj.kh; & eftLVªsV }kjk ekeyk ls'ku U;k;ky; dks lqiqnZ fd;k tkuk & fof/k esa ekU; fd, tkus ;ksX; ugha & vikLr & ekeyk U;kf;d eftLVªsV ÁFke Js.kh ds U;k;ky; dks ÁfrÁsf"krA 2013 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 207 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½ vuqlfjrA 2014 ¼2½ eŒÁŒ ohDyh uksV~l 308 voyafcRkA ¼iSjk 1 ,oa 4½
1. The complaint case has been filed against the applicant under section 392 of IPC for committing robbery on 27.7.2006. Charge has been framed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar (M.P.). Earlier offence under section 392 of IPC was triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class. After amendment, this offence is triable by the Court of sessions. It is important to note that the aforesaid amendment was effective from 14.2.2008, hence, before this amendment the old cases which were already pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class for commission of offence on earlier dates, is still triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class.
2. The Gwalior Bench in the case of Rakesh Kumar Dubey v. State of M.P. and another, [2014 (II) MPWN 308=2014 (4) MPHT 69], has held as follows :
"Schedule I of CrPC was amended from 22.2.2008. According to amended provision such of ences are triable by the Court of Sessions. Before coming into force of amendment, the case was pending before the Magistrate. Amendment has no retrospective ef ect. Hence, matter was remanded back to the Magistrate for trail of the case."
3. In the case of Ramesh Kumar Soni v. State of M.P., [2013 (2) JLJ 207=ILR (2013) MP 741], the apex Court has held that the view taken by the Full Bench holding the amended provision to be applicable to pending cases is not correct on principle. While overruling the decision by the Supreme Court, made it clear that the same will not affect cases that have already been tried or at an advanced stage before the Magistrates in terms of the said decision. Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the decision in Ramesh Kumar Soni (supra), read as under :
"25. The present case, in our opinion, is one in which we need to make it clear that the overruling of the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court will not af ect cases that have already been tried or are at an advanced stage before the Magistrate in terms of the said decision.
26. With the above observation, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed."
4. In light of the aforesaid principle, the order passed by the learned Magistrate for the committal of the case is not sustainable in law.
Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back
