A Magistrate must discuss evidence recorded before him to form an opinion that the accused merits punishment more severe than seven years and record reasons before committing the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 323.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for both sides.

2. By the present Application, the Applicant has questioned the order dated 30/4/2024 passed below Exhibit-1 in RCC No. 224/2018 (State V/s Mohd. Javed & Ors.) by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldhana, whereby the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions on the ground that offence under Section 467 of Indian Penal Code is punishable upto life imprisonment which may extend to ten years i.e. of severe nature, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate is empowered only to inflict punishment upto seven years. While exercising the powers, no reasons are recorded to justify the commitment of proceeding to the Sessions Court.

3. The undisputed facts of the present case is that Informant/Suman Rajput lodged a complaint against the present Applicant which was registered vide Crime No. 682/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 170, 171 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. After registration of offence, the Investigating Officer has conducted investigation and filed chargesheet against the present Applicant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldhana. Accordingly, cognizance of the matter was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and framed charges against the Applicant and recorded evidence of the parties. After recording of evidence, matter was fixed for recording statement of Applicant/Accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. At the later stage of matter, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order by recording the fact that offence against the Applicant is under Section 467 of IPC and the punishment prescribed for the said offence is upto the imprisonment of life or with the imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to pay a fine. According to the learned Magistrate, he is empowered to inflict punishment only upto seven years, therefore, he has committed the trial to the Court of Sessions.

5. The learned Counsel for Applicant submitted that for exercising the powers under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if it appears to the Magistrate, at any stage of proceeding that, case ought to be tried by the Court of Sessions, it would be necessary for him to record the skeletal reason after discussing the evidence and formulate the opinion as to how punishment more than seven years can be inflicted against the present Applicant. However, in the present case there is no discussion at the instance of learned Magistrate as to how and on what basis he has formulated the opinion of guilt. He has only stated that under Section 467 of Indian Penal Code the punishment is permitted upto the life imprisonment or may extend to ten years, and therefore, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Hence, the Applicant seeks indulgence of this Court in the matter.

6. The learned APP as well as learned Counsel for Intervener/Informant has strongly opposed the Application. According to them, the bare perusal of Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only states that if it appears to the Magistrate at any stage of the proceedings that the case which ought to be tried by the Court of Sessions, he can commit it to the Court of Sessions, and therefore, while exercising these powers, Section 323 of the Code no where provides recording of reasons in the matter. Hence, there is no error committed by the learned Magistrate while exercising the powers, consequently there is no force in the submission of the learned Counsel for Applicant and the present Application deser