ORDER
1. In these four criminal applications, the question involved is identical. They arise out of a common order made on 4-12-1996 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F. C. Ambad, in Criminal Cases Nos. 23 to 26 of 1994, transferring these cases to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna. They are, therefore, being disposed of by the common judgment.
2. The petitioners are the accused persons in the criminal cases and they are the employees of District Central Co-operative Bank Limited. Jalna. A complaint is filed against them on the ground that they, while working in the District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Branch at Teerthpuri, mis-appropriated the amount exceeding Rs. 1,00,000/-. A crime, therefore, came to be registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Charge-sheet came to be filed before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. Ambad. The learned Judicial Magistrate by his impugned order transferred these cases to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna. The reason for transfer of these cases in that the charges levelled against the accused are serious and having much public importance. The impugned order is passed in exercise of powers under Sections 322(1)(c) read with 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relying on a decision in case of Baba Abdul Khan v. A. D. Sawant, J. M. E. C. Nagpur, 1994 Cr LJ 2836.
4. Shri Salunke, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order is bad in law when the learned Magistrate has committed the cases and that too merely because he was of the opinion that, “… taking into consideration the gravity of the offences and public importance of these cases, it was deemed just and proper to transfer these cases to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna, for trial.” It is submitted that in absence of any contingencies, having seen to exist under Sections 322(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the order is unsustainable in law. It also submitted that the present cases do not fall under the ambit of Section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
5. Shri Patil, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that though the impugned order does not specifically contains the detail reasons, cannot be said to be bad in law in view of the decisions reported in 1994 Cr LJ 2836.
6. Before dealing with the case relied on by the learned Magistrate, it may be necessary to set out the relevant provisions of Sections 322, 323 and 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They are as under :
“S. 322. Procedure in cases which Magistrate cannot dispose of –
(1) If, in the course of any inquiry into an offence or a trial before a Magistrate, in any district, the evidence appears to him to warrant as presumption –
(a) that he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, or
(b) that the case is one which should be tried or committed for trial by some other Magistrate in the district, or,
(c) that the case should be tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate he shall stay the proceedings and submit the case, with a brief report explaining its nature, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or to such other Magistrate, having jurisdiction, as the Chief Judicial Magistrate directs.
(2) The Magistrate to whom the case is submitted may, if so empowered, either try the case himself, or refer it to any Magistrate, subordinate to him having jurisdiction, or commit the accused for trial.
S. 323. Procedure when, after commencement of inquiry or trial, Magistrate finds case should be committed –
(1) If, in any inquiry into an offence or a trial before a Magistrate, it appears to him at any stage of the proceedings before signing judgment that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session, he shall commit it to that Court under the provisions hereinbefore contained and thereupon the provisions of Chapter XVIII shall apply to the commitment so made.
S. 324. ……………………………………………………..
S. 325 Procedure when Magistrate cannot pass sentence sufficiently severe. –
(1) Whenever a Magistrate is of opinion, after hearing the evidence for the prosecution and the accused, that the accused is guilty, and that he ought to receive a punishment different in kind, form or more severe than, that which such Magistrate is empowered to inflict, or, being a Magistrate of the second class, is of opinion that the accused ought to be required to execute a bond under S. 106, he may record the opinion and submit his proceedings and forward the accused to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom he is subordinate.
(2) When more accused than one are being tried together, and the Magistrate considers it necessary to proceed under sub-s. (1), in regard to any of such accused, he shall forward all the accused, who are in his opinion guilty, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
(3) The Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom the proceedings are submitted may, if he thinks fit, examine the parties and recall and examine any witness who has already given evidence in the case and may call for and take any further evidence, and shall pass such judgment, sentence or order in the case as he thinks fit, and as is according to law.”
7. Now, on reading these Sections 322 to 325, it will appear that applicability of Sections 322 to 325 is depending upon certain conditions. Section 322 applies before commencement or in course of any inquiry or trial and is wide enough to include the cases of lack of jurisdiction, defective jurisdiction or local or territorial jurisdiction, or other cases in which the Magistrate is of the opinion from the facts disclosed in the police report or other evidence the case should be tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Section 323 applies after commencement of inquiry or trial and that too at any stage of proceedings before signing the judgment. This section empowers the Magistrate to commit the case to Court of Session, if it appears to him that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session.
Section 325, however, applies when the Magistrate on finding an accused guilty is of opinion that the punishment should be (i) different from that which he can inflict or (ii) should be more severe than he can inflict, he should, without convicting the accused, submit the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom he is subordinate for his order.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners fairly accepts the position that though the charge sheet is filed the inquiry or trial has not yet commenced into the offences alleged against the petitioners. That means, the impugned order can very well fall within the ambit of Section 322 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
9. Now in order to bring the case under the ambit of Section 322 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short the Code) there must be shown to exist following conditions, i.e. (i) lack of jurisdiction, (ii) defective jurisdiction/legal or territorial, and (iii) in ability to inflict adequate punishment for any other sound reason, to which the Chief Judicial Magistrate is empowered.
It is, therefore, incumbent on the Magistrate to give adequate reasons to exercise his powers under Section 322(1)(c) of the Code. Merely quoting the section and observing that, “…. taking into consideration the gravity of the offences and public importance of the cases, these cases are required to be transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial ….” is by itself not a sufficient compliance of provisions of Section 322 of the Code. The reason assigned by the learned trial Magistrate for transfer of the cases to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate is not only but also suffers from patent illegality under the express provisions of Section 322 of the Code.
Secondly, Section 322 of the Code does not empower the Magistrate to transfer the case, even if the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled, to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial. What section requires is that, the Magistrate, in such a case, shall stay the proceeding in the first hand and secondly, submit the case with brief report explaining it’s nature to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or to such other Magistrate having jurisdiction, as the Chief Judicial Magistrate directs. In no cases, the Magistrate can straight way commit or transfer the case or cases to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 322 of the Code.
10. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate therefore, committed a procedural error in transferring the cases to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and that too for no sound reasons. The matter would have been different, if the Magistrate is of the opinion that from the facts disclosed in the police report or otherwise, that he will not be able to inflict adequate punishment in cases, where the offences punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding 7 years are involved. In absence of such, the learned trial Magistrate has committed an error in exercise of his power under Section 322 of the Code. Therefore, there is force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that there is violation of procedure, as contemplated under Section 322 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
11. Coming to the decision on which the learned trial Magistrate has relied on, it can be said that the learned Magistrate appears to have mis-read the decision inasmuch as it is incumbent on the learned Magistrate to give brief reasons why clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 322 of the Criminal Procedure Code applies and mere observation that having regard to the seriousness of the offence and public importance of the case, he is of the opinion that case should be transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, cannot be termed to be a proper compliance of the provisions of the Code.
12. In the result, the applications are allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matters are remanded to the trial Magistrate for passing appropriate order in the light of aforesaid observations.
13. Applications allowed.