IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 20th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 40253 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SHIV PAL SINGH CHOUHAN S/O SHRI SURYA PRATAP
SINGH CHOUHAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O 89
SHIVA ROYAL PARK E- 8 EXTENSION SOUTH SALAIYA
BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI KUMARESH PATHAK-ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
GORAKHPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2.
KARUNAKAR TRIPATHI S/O LATE SHRI R.N.
TRIPATHI R/O
81/1
TULSI
NAGAR
BHOPAL
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PANKAJ TIWARI-PANEL LAWYER)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as "Code") has been filed assailing the order dated
26.08.2023 passed by 16th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal
Revision No.168/2023 (Shiv Pal Singh Chouhan vs. State of M.P. and another)
whereby revision preferred against the order dated 26.04.2023 passed by
Sushri Saifi Tajir Tamanna, learned JMFC, Jabalpur was challenged but same
1
Signed by: BIJU BABY
Signing time:
10/5/2023 1:37:37 PM
Signature Not Verified
has been dismissed on the ground that order passed by learned JMFC is
interlocutory in nature.
2. The facts out of which the present petition arises, briefly stated are
thus:
The petitioner along with one other is facing trial for commission of
offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 of IPC before learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class
recorded the evidence of the prosecution and the defence and at the stage of
final hearing passed a cryptic order dated 26.04.2023 that, in her opinion,
accused are guilty of the aforesaid offences and that the accused ought to
receive a punishment different in kind from, or more severe than, which the
Magistrate is empowered to inflict and directed the accused persons and
learned prosecutor to remain present before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Judicial
Magistrate without hearing the prosecution and the defence and without
considering the evidence of prosecution and defence has formed an opinion
that accused persons are guilty for commission of offences which is against the
procedure and settled position of law. Therefore, learned counsel for the
petitioner has prayed to set aside the impugned orders passed by the Courts
below.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the
impugned orders passed by the Courts below and has prayed for dismissal of
the petition.
5. Section 29 of the Code deals with sentences which the Magistrate
may pass. Section 29 reads as under:
29. Sentences which Magistrate may pass.-(1) The Court of a Chief
2
Signed by: BIJU BABY
Signing time:
10/5/2023 1:37:37 PM
Signature Not Verified
Judicial Magistrate may pass any sentence authorized by law except a sentence
of death or of imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding
seven years.
(2) The Court of a Magistrate of the first class may pass a sentence of
imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or of fine not exceeding
10[ten] thousand rupees, or of both.
(3) The Court of a Magistrate of the second class may pass a sentence of
imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or of fine not exceeding [five]
thousand rupees, or of both.
(4) The Court of a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall have the powers
of the Court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate and that of a Metropolitan
Magistrate, the powers of the Court of a Magistrate of the first class.
6. Under Section 29(2) of the Code, the Court of a Magistrate of the
first class may pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three
years, or of fine not exceeding 10,000/- rupees, or of both. Section 29 of the
Code lays down the extent of the sentences which a Chief Judicial Magistrate, a
Magistrate of the First Class, and a Magistrate of the Second Class, by his
original jurisdiction is competent to inflict. He cannot exceed the limit
prescribed by the Section and pass a sentence which he is not authorized to
pass. It would therefore be clear that if the Magistrate come to the conclusion
that the petitioner was guilty of the offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468
of IPC, in view of the provisions contained in Section 29(2) of the Code she
would not be in a position to award punishment to the petitioner.
7. Sections 322 to 325 of the Code deals with the powers of the Judicial
Magistrate First Class regarding transfer of the case in certain situation to the
3
Signed by: BIJU BABY
Signing time:
10/5/2023 1:37:37 PM
Signature Not Verified
file of the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.