Holding

The magistrate’s functions under Sections 207, 209 and the taking of cognizance under Section 190 constitute an inquiry under Section 2(g), thereby empowering the magistrate to remand the accused to custody under Section 309(2) pending commitment, rendering the High Court’s view that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction untenable.

Summary

The respondents, Laxmi Brahman and Naval Garg, were arrested for murder (IPC s.302) and surrendered before a magistrate on 2 November 1974. The investigating officer failed to file the charge‑sheet within the 60‑day limit prescribed by the then Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., and the respondents did not apply for bail under that provision but sought bail under Section 439 before the High Court. The High Court held that after the charge‑sheet was filed, the magistrate had no jurisdiction to detain the accused under Section 167 or to remand them under Sections 209 and 309, and therefore ordered bail. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the magistrate’s duties under Sections 207 and 209, together with taking cognizance under Section 190, constitute an "inquiry" within the meaning of Section 2(g), which authorises the magistrate to remand the accused to custody under Section 309(2) pending the commitment order. Consequently, the High Court’s view was untenable and its bail order was set aside. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

The jurisdiction of a magistrate to detain or remand an accused after a charge‑sheet is filed under Section 170, in a case exclusively triable by a Court of Session.
Whether the proceedings before the magistrate, including compliance with Section 207, amount to an "inquiry" under Section 2(g) of the Cr.P.C.
The applicability of Sections 209 and 309 to remand the accused before the order of commitment to the Court of Session.
The propriety of granting bail under Section 439 when the investigation is incomplete.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 167(2), s. 170, s. 190, s. 193, s. 204, s. 207, s. 209, s. 226, s. 227, s. 2(g), s. 309(2), s. 57
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302

Subjects

BailSection 167Section 209Section 207Section 309InquiryCommitmentCourt of SessionCriminal ProcedureCharge‑sheetCognizance

Judgment

. 537.

STATE OF U.P.

v.
LAXMI BRAHMAN & ANR.
)
March 11, 1983

(D.A. DESAI AND R.B. MISRA, JJ;]

- '~ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-S. 167 (2) as it stood'prior to 1978 and
' Ss. 170, 207, 209 and 309 (2)-0jfence exclusively triable by Court of Session--
Power of Magistrate to gran{ bail _to_orremamJaccused to ~ustody-Whtn
investigation is n~t co~plete wiihin prescribed limit i.iQgiStr'D~e. ·1has ~oif~ '.~n~~r t
s; 167(2) to gra~t bail to ace.used pro1 ided he applies for it and, is. J!,''/!.are~ !7
furnish_ hail-After subrr.ission cf p~lice rr port u~~er. i.~· /~~. ar.d. ~ff:?!~
t~Tnmlttinr . accused to Ccurt of ~es~fon under S. 209 Magistrate ~as power
,. uni/er S. 309(2) to remand accused to custody.

Code of Criminal Pro:edure, 197'!-S. 2 (g) and Ss. 190, 207 and 209-- (b
Taking cognizance of iJjfenct: by Magi strate urder S. 190 Is a fuilicial. frfnction
-Discharge.of stat'utory obligation by Magistrate to fufnish copies of 'documents
to accused under S. 207 read with s: 209 is also judicial function and con'stitutes
'inquiry' within the meaning cf S. 2(g).

The respondents were suspected 6f having committed an Offence pUriishitblC
With dea'th or imprisonment for life under section 302 I.P.C. triable eXctuSively E
by the Court of Session. They surrendered before the MaiistratC on Noveniber
2; 1974 ·-and ~ere taken into custody, The investigating officer failed to S'1bmit
the charge-sheet/police report against them within the period of 60 days contem-
plated by the proviso to sub-s. (2) of S. 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 as it stootl prior to its amendment ill 1978. H6wever. the reSp0n1dents
did i:iot apply to the Magistrate for being released on bail but approach~d \lie
High court under s. 439 Cr. P.C. Acccording to the High Court, the charge- F
sheet aMinst the respondents was submitted on February 5, · 1975. the I11kh
Court directed that the respondents be released on bail pending trial ~y the
Court of Session holding : ·

(i) that in a case triable exclusively by the Court of Session afier i.he
charge-sheet has been submitted under S. 170 and belore -G
committing the accused to the Court of Session the Magistrate has
no jurisdiction [to authorise· the detention of ai:t accused ill
custody under S. 167 Cr. P.C.;

(ii) fhat ill such a case S. 209 would not confer power on the Magis-
trate to commit il)e accused to custoci~ •ince after the, . enac,\D]ept
ot the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the procedure before
the Magistrate under Chapter XV! ?f thci co!le woui<l not be . aJl
inquiry within the meaning of S. 2 (g) thereof;
531l SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983] 2 S.C.R.

(iii) that in such a case S. 309 would also not enable the Magistrate to
remand the accused to custody since he would not be competent
to try the. accused ; and

(iv) that in view of the provision contained in S. 207 read with S. 209
Cr. P. C. the Magistrate has to commit the accused forthwith to the
Court of Session and it is only after the order of commitment is
;B made that the Magistrate will have power to remand tpe accused
to the custody during and until the conclusion of the trial.

Allowing the appeal,

.""
.~
. HELD : The view that ~after the :•accused is brought before the court
along with the police repor(undcr S. 170 Cr. P.C. tl:e Magistrate must forth·
with commit the· accusstd to the Court of Session because the Magistrate
\ would have no jurisdict~on in the absence of any provision to remand the
accused to custody till the order committing the case to the Court of Session
is made, is wholly untenable and must be set aside. [550-F-H] .'
.·D Section 170 Cr. P.C. obligates the investigating officer to submit the police
report, ifin~the course of investigation s1;1fficient evidence or reasonable ground
is made out for the trial oi;for commitment for trial of the accused, to tho
Magistrate empowered to take cognizatce of the offence upon a police report.
On this report being submitted, the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence
disclosed in investigation as envisaged by S.190. Cognizance of an offence even if
E exclusively triable by the Court of Session has to be taken by the Magistrate ~
cause S. 193 precludes the Court of Session from taking cognizance of any
offence. Taking cognizance of an offence under S. 190 is a purely judicial
function subject to judicial review. The statutory obligation imposed by S, 207
read with S, 209 on the Magistrat<: to furnish free of cost copies of document•
men~ioned in S. 207 to the accused is a judicial function and it has to be
diacharged in a judicial manner. It is distinctly possible that the copies ma7 not
F be ready. That makes it necessary to adjourn the matter for oome time which
may be spent in preparing the copies and supplying the same to the accused. The
Magistrate can pr-0ceed to commit the accused for trial to the Court of Session
only after he judicially discharges the function imposed upon him by S. 207. This
conclusion is fortified by the provisions contained in Ss. 226 and 227 of Chapter
XVID which prescribe the procedure for trial of a case by t e Jrt of Session.
When the Magistrate is performing a judicial function under . '207~ it would
G undoubtedly be an inqµiry. The making of an order comm1,ting the accused
to the. Court of Session will equally be a siage _in the inquiry. Thus from
the time the accused appears or is produced before the Magistrate with the
police report under S. 170 and the Magistrate proceeds to enquire whether
S. 207. has been compli~d with and then proceeds to commit the accused to
the Court of Session, the proe:eed:ing before t e Magistrate would be an inquiry
ao ·contemplated by S, 2(g), and S, 309(2) would enable the Magistrate to
remand the accu~d to cl!stody till the inquiry to be made is complete.
1547-G·H ; ~48-A·B ; 549-B·H ; SS()A-D]
u. P. STATE v. LAXMI BRAHMAN (J)esai, J.) 539

In the instant case, when the matter was before the High Court, the
chargesheet had not been submitted against the respondents by the investigating ·A
officer meaning thereby that the investigation was still in progress. If the
High Court had no information when the application for bail moved by the
respondehts for being enlarged on ·bail was heard as to whether the charge-..
sheet against the respondents had been submitted to the Magistrate or not, it
was futile for the High Court to have undertaken an investigation of. a point
of law which did not directly arise in the facts before the High Court. As the
High Court had dealt with the matter, it became a precedent and, therefore, B
it"became necessary for the Court to examine whether the View of the High
Court was in consonance with the provisions of the Code. [544-H ; 545-A·D]

The High Court was right in holding that the jurisdiction to grant bail,
in case-investigation is not completed within the prescribed lin1it as incorporat-
ed in the proviso to S. 167 (2) as it then stood, vests in the Magistrate if the c
accused applies for and is prepared to furnish bail. Section 167-envisages a
stage when a suspect is arrested and investigation is not cQmpletc within
the prescribed period. The investigation would come to an end the moment
·charge-sheet is submitted as required under S. 170 unless the Magistrate
directs further investigation. [545 E-FJ ·
D
State of Bihar and Anr. v. J.A.C. Sa/danha and Ors., [19s0] 2 SCR 16,
referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATB JURISIDICTTON: Criminal Appeal No. 249
•> of 1976. E
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 10th July, 1975 of the Allahabad High Co.urt in Criminal Misc.
1 No. 1104 of 1975.
F
Prithvi Raj and Dalveer Bhandari for the Appellant.

N.M. Ghatate. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G

DESAl, J. : Respondents Lakshmi Brahman and Naval Garg
were suspected of having committed an offence punishable with
death or imprisonment for life under section 302 IPC. Both of
them surrendered before the Magistrate· on November 2, 1974 and H
were taken into custody. The investigation was then in progress.
The investigating Officer failed to submit the charge•sheet against
--
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS • [1983] 2 s.c.R.

them within a period of 60 days as contemplated by sub,sec. 2 of sec.
A 167 of 1973 Code prior to its amendment by the Criminal Procedure
Code (Amendment) Act, 1978 which enlarges the period from 60 to
....
90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with
death, °imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less
than 10 years. In this case we are concerned with the proviso to
B sec. i67 (2) of the Cr. P. C. 1973 prior to its amendment· in 1978.
It .appears that the Investigating Officer failed to submit the charge-
.sheet within the prescribed period and according to thll High eourt
till as late as February 5, 1975, Thereupon the two respondents
moved an application under sec. 439 of the Cr. P. C. invoking ,
the power ,of the High Court to grant bail to any person accused of
C an offence, . even where the offence is punishable with death <?r
imprisonment for life.

. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court which heard
the application was of the opinion that after the charge-sheet bas
· D been submitted under sec. 170 Cr. P. C., 'the Magistrate has no
jurisdiction to authorise the detention of an accused in custody
under sec. 167 Cr. P. C., and therefore, the authority to remand
the accused to custody after the charge-sheet has been submitted,
has to be gathered from other provisions of the Code. The High
E Court then posed to itself the question whether in .a case
.( '
instituted upon a police report exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions, the Magistrate while committing the accused
to the Court of Sessions, under sec. 209 Cr. P. C. has, after the
accused is brought before him and before the order committing the
accused to the Court of Sessions is made, jurisdiction to remand
F the accused to custody other tha11 the police custody ? The High
Court was of opinion that since after the enactment of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the proceeding before the Magistrate
under Chapter XVI of the Code would not be an enquiry within
the meaning of the expression in sec. 2 (g) and, therefore, sec.
G 209 would not confer power on the · Magistrate to commit the
accused to custody. Proceeding along the line, the High Court
held tl\at in view of j:he provision contained in sec. 2Cl7 r~~d with
sec. 209 of the Cr. P. C. the Magistrate has to commit the accused
fort~with to the Court. of Sessions and only after. the. order of
R commit111ent is made, the Magistra\e will have power to remand
a~\l~d to t\le custody during and until the conclusion of the
trial, The ll;igh (;ourt accordingly held that the Magistrate has 110
t!. P. STA'rll v. LAXM! lllWTh!AN (Desai, i.) 541
jurisdiction, po_wer or authority to remand the accused .to custod}"
after the charge-sheet is submitted and . before the commitment A
order is made, and therefore the accused were entitled to be releit•
sed 01! bail. So saying, the High Court directed that the r.espoil•
dents be released on bail pending the trial by the Court of Sessions;
State of U. P. has preferred· this appeal by special leave,
B
Respondents have not appeared even though served. and the
notice of lodgment of appeal has also been serve~ upon then\'. ·As
the respondents had not entered appearance, a fresh notice of
hearing the appeal was also issued, but the respondents have not
chosen to appear at the hearing of the appeal. Mr. Prithviraj,
learned· counsel appeared for the appellant, · State of U.P. At C
the commencement of the hearing of the appeal, we ·enquired
from him as to what has happened to the case against the
respondents, whether the trial had taken place ; whether they were
acquitted or convicted and whether any useful purpose would be
served by hearing of the appeal which appears to us to have become D
practically infructuous. Mr. Prithviraj had no information about the
stage of trial and the present position of the respondents. But it
was urged that the interpretation put by the High Court ·on secs.
207, 209 and 309 if not examined by this Court is likely to result
in miscarriage of justice in a large number of cases as the High
Court .has introduced a stage of compulsory grant of bail to E
persons accused of serious offence not warranted by the Code, and
• ) who would not be otherwise entitled to the discretionary relief of
bail. It is this submission which has persuaded us to examine the
contention on merits.
1' F
Section 2(g} of the Code defines inquiry to mean every inquiry,
other than a trial, conducted under the Code by a Magistrate or
Court. Cognizable offence has been defined in sec. 2(c) to mean
an offence for which, a police officer may, in accordance with the
First Schedule or under any other law for the time in force, arrest G
without warrant. Sec. 57 provides ,that no police officer shall
detain in custody a person arrested witho'ut warrant for a longer
period than under all the circumstances of the case· is reasonable and
such period shall not, in the absence · of a special order of a
Magistrate under Sec. 167, exceed twenty-four hours, exclusive of H
the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the
Magistrate's Court. In fact, the provision contained in· sec. 57
incorporatei the fund1m1ntal right guaranteed by Art. 22 of the

I
S42 SUPREME COURT ·REPORTS {1983] 2 s.c.R.

Constitution. Chapter XII of the Code incorporates provisions fot
A initiation of investigation 'onreceipt of information of a cognizable
offence continuing the investigation culminating in the submission
of a police report otherwise styled as charge-sheet under sec. 170
to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, which would imply the end
of investigation. · Subsequent proceeding before the Magistrate
B would be the commencement of inquiry or trial leading to either
commitment for trial in the Session Court or to .discharge or
acquittal of the accused by the Court having jurisdiction to try the
case. Sec. 167 finds its place in Chapter XII. Prior to its amend-
ment by the amending Act of 1978, it read as under:-

·c "( I) Whenever any person is arrested and detained
in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be
comp! eted within the period of tw~nty-four hours fixed
by sec. 57, and there are grounds for believing that the
accusation or information is well founded, the oflicer-in-
charge of the police station or the police officer making
D the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub- '
inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial
Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter
prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time
forward the accused to such Magistrate.
E (2) · The Magistrate to whom an accused person is
forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has
not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time
authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as
such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen
F days in the whole; and' if he has no jurisdiction to try the
case or commit it for trial, and considers further deten-
tion unnecessary, he may order the accused to be
forwarded to Magistrate having such jurisdiction :

Provided that :

(a) the Magistrate - may authorise detention of the
accused person, otherwise than in custody of the
police, beyond the period of fifteen days if he is
satisfied, that adequate grounds exist for doing so,
hut, no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of
the accused person in custody under this section for
a total period exceeding sixty days, and on the
ti.P. STATE v. LAX!.i! BRAHMAN (Desai, j,) S43
expiry of the said period of sixty days, the accused
person shall be released on bail; and every person A
released on bail under this section shall be deemed to
. ~l be so released under the provisions of Chapter
XXXIII for the purposes of the Chapter;

{b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention in any B·
custody under this section unless the accused is
produced before him;

(c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially
empowered in this behalf. by the High Cou1t, shall
authorise detention in the custody of the police." C·
In this appeal, we are concerned with sec. 167 hereinab!>ve
extracted. The High Court after examining the scheme of sec. 167(1)
and (2) with the Proviso rightly concluded that, on the expiry of 60
days from.the date of the arrest of the accused, his further detention
does not become ipso facto illegal or void, but if the charge-sheet is D'
not submitted within the period of 60 days, then notwithstandiilg to
the contrary in sec. 437(1), the accused would be entitled to an order
for being released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail.
In this case, it is an admitted position that the respodents did not
apply to the Magistrate for being released on bail on the expiry of E
60 days from the date of their arrest. The High Court was of the
opinion that as the respondents did not apply for. bail on the expiry
' ) of sixty days from the date of their arrest, their continued detention
would not be illegal or without the authority of law. So far there
is no controversy.
E
It was next contended before the High Court that after the
submission of the charge-sheet, when the investigatio~ could be said
to have ended, it was not open to the Magistrate to authorise the
detention of an accused in custody under sec. 167 of the Code, and
therefore, if the accused is to be detained in custody after the submi- G
ssion of the charge-sheet upon which the Magistrate takes cognizance.
of an offence, the power to remand the accused to custody will have
to be gathered from other provisions of the C9de. The High Court
then took notice of the fact that the police report discloses an·
offence exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and the Magistrate H
will have to proceed according to the provision contained in sec. 209
of the Code. Shorn of embellishment the High Court proceede_d to
find out how the accused against whom the allegation is that he is
SljPREM~ cou~r REPORTS [1983] 2 s.c.!l.

suspe9wd of hav.il\!! coromitted a.µ,offence punishable with death or
imprisone~nt.for life an¢ in respect of whom the period for comple-
tion of il\Y~~tigatjon has elapsed and in the ab.sence of charge-sheet, ·
order comrii,itting him.to .Court of,Sessions to stand his trial cannot
c~ .
be made and the accused.does not apply for bail, how is he to· be dealt
with by the Magistrate. In other words during the interregnum, has
the Magistrate power or jurisdiction to remand him to custody
other than police cu~tody an.d if, there is such power,
in which provision it is located. The High Court then
combed other provisions of the Code, and, ultimately, concluded
that siilce the J973 Code does not envisage a preliminary enquiry
to be held by the Magistrate under Chapter XVI,_ the Magistrate is not
expected to hold any enquiry before committing the accused and there-
fore sec. 309, would not enable him to remand the accused to custody.
In the terms High Court held that in such a ·situation for want of
power in the Magistrate to remand accused to custody, the Magistrate
must forthwith on receipt of charge sheet pass an order committing
the accused to Court of Sessions to stand his trial and theh exercise
power under sec. 309 or to release him on bail notwithstanding the •
fact that accused has not sought an order of baiL The High Court
left the question unanswered what would happen if the accused is
unable to furnish bail by suggesting that the best thing to do for the
Magistrate in such a situation is to forthwith pass an order committ-
ing the accused to Sessions to stand his trail and then 'invoke his
judsdiction to remand the accused to cusfody under sec. 309 of the
Code. The High Court held that as the Magistrate before whom the
' >
charge-sheet was submitted remanded the resposdents to custpdy
without making the. order of commitment, the order remanding the
accused to custody, cannot be sustained under secs. 167 (2), 209, 309
of the Code, and no other provision under which the respondents
could be remanded to the custody at that stage having been indicated
to the Court, the High Court considered it a compelling necessity to
accede t 0 the request of the respondents to direct that they .should be
released on bail. Sedous exception is taken to this view of the High
Court by the learned counsel for the appellant.

Respqudents were suspected of having coqi.mittqd an offence
Pf.11i~h~9\e un<!er sec. 302 IPC. On their having surrendered, they
w,~r~ ,take!); into custody. When the matter was before the High Court
as noti,ed by. the High Court, the charge-sheet was not submitted
agaimt 'them by the Investigating Officer meaning thereby that
tl. P. STATE v. LAXM!.BllAHMAN (Desai, J.) 545

investigation was still in progress. The High. Court proceeded to
examine the powers ofthe Magistrate·to whom the charge-sheet is A
submitted, in case of an offence exclusively triable by the- Court of
Sessions for dealing with an accused after he is produced before him
'. - -l presumably under sec. 170 and before an order committing the
accused to the Court of Sessions as envisaged under sec. 209 is made.

If the High Court had no information when the application for B
bail moved by.respondents for being enlarged on bail was heard as
to whetl\erthe charge-sheet,against respondents was submitted to the
Magistrate or not, in our opinion, it was futile for the High Court to
undertake investigation of a point of law which would not directly
arise .in the facts before the High Court and ordinarily the academic C
exercise is hardly undertaken. However, now as the High Court has
dealt with the matter it becomes a precedent and, therefore, it becomes
necessary for us to examine whether the view of the High Court
is in consonance with the provision of the Code. And if not whether
in the larger interest of criminal justice, it is necessary to interfere
with the same. D
We would proceed on the assumption as done by.the High Court
that the ,favestigating Officer has submitted the, police report as
contemplated by sec. 170 and as required therein forwarded the
accused under custody to the Magistrate to whom the police report
is submitted. Now, the High Court is right in holding that the E
jurisdiction to gra,nt bail, .in . case investigation is not comP,leted
-) within the prescribed time limit as incorporated in the provision as it
then stood,. vests !tt the Mag~rtrate if the accused applies and is
prepared to furnish bail. Section I 67 envisages a stage when a suspect
is arrested andJhe investigation is not completed within the. pres- F
cri.bed period. The. investigation. would come to an end the moment
charge-sheet is submitt.ed as required under sec. 170 µnless the Magis-
trate directs further investigation. This view is in accord with the
_,, decision of this Court in State of Bi/tar Anr. v. T.A.C. Sa/danha &
Ors.,(')
• G
The question is how the Magistrate is to deal with the accused
fonvarded tq . him with the poliGe · report under sec. 170 and the
polic~ report disclo.se an offence exclusively triable by the Court of-
Sessions, Proyisions contained in Chapter XVI provide for commen-
cement of proceedings before the Magistrate. But before we refer to H

(I) [1980] 2 SCR 16 at 39.
546 StJPll.EMll COtJR'I' REPORTS (1983) i s.c.11..

those provisions, we must make a passing reference to the provision
A contained in sec. 190 which provides for taking cognizance of any
offence by Magistrate, one such mode of taking cognizance of an
offence being upon police report if the facts disclose an offence.
The police report contemplated by sec. 190(1)(b) is the one submitted
to the Magistrate under sec. 170. Sec. 204 provides for issue of
process. Sec. 207 provides that in any case where the proceeding has
been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without
delay furp.ish to the accused, free of costs, a copy of ea ch of the docu-
ments set out therein. There are two provisos to this section which
are not material for the present purpose. Sec. 209 confers power on
the Magistrate to commit the accused to the Court of Sessions when
c the offence disclosed in the police report is triable exclusively by it.
Section 209 reads as under :

"209. Commitment of case to Court of Sessions when offence
is triable exclusively by it;

D When in a case instituted on a police report or other-
wise the accused appears or is brought before the
Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the
offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session,
he shall-

E (a) commit the case to Court of Sessions;

(b) subject to the provisions of this Code, relating to
·bail, remand the accused .to custody during, and ••
until the conclusion of the trial; .... "

F The High Court was of the opinion that on the submission
of the police report under sec. 'I 70, the Magistrate has to forthwith
commit the accused to the Court of Sessions if the offence disclosed
in the charge-sheet is the one exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions. This being the only function of the Magistrate accord-
G ing to the High Court, the proceeding before the Magistrate under
sec. 207 read with sec. 209 would not be an inqui~y within the
meaning of the expression in sec. 2(g) of the Code. In reaching
this conclusion, the High Court referred to secs. 84, 116, 125, 137,
138, 145 and 146 as well as secs. 159 and 202 of the Code to
ff ascertain the meaning of expression 'inquiry' in the context in which
it is used in .these provisions. These provisions would hardly shed
any light on the nature of the proceedings and the function discharg-
ed by the Magistrate from the time of receipt of a police report

•
·u.P. STATE v. LAXMI BRAJlMAN (Desai, J.) 547
•
under sec. 170 disclosing an offence exclusively triable by the Court
of Sessions and until 'making of an order committing the accused A
to the Conrt of Sessions to stand bis trial. The question posed is :
is it an administrative function or it is a judicial function? It is
• -,_; certainly not an administration function. If it is jm,licial function,
it has to be either an inquiry or a trial because the Code does not
envisage discharge of judicial function by the Magistrate under the B
Code in any other manner. The High Court in this con text has
observed as under :

"These sections (207-209) do not contemplate that
before committing the case to Sessions, the Magistr'ate
should conduct some proceeding with a view to ascertain c
or verify facts. Sec. 209 of the Code merely required
the Magistrate, taking cognizance of an offence on the
basis of a police report, to look into the report and if
he finds that the case is triable exciusively by Court of
Sessions to make an order committing the case to
D
• Sessions. Since in such a case the Magistrate taking cog-
nizance of the offence is not required to conduct any
proceeding for ascertaining or verifying facts with a
view to commit the ·case to Sessions, it cannot be
said that the provisions contained in secs. 204, 207 to
209 of the Code contemplate an inquiry under the E
Code."
.) With respect this approach is not only not borne out by the
relevant provisions of the Code but it overlooks the scheme of the
sections and the purpose underlying the same.
F
Section 170 obligates the Investigating Officer to submit the
police report if in the course of investigation sufficient evidence
or reasonable ground is made out for the trial or for commitment
of the accused, to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance
of the offence upon a police report. On this report being submitt- G
ed the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence disclosed in in-
vestigation as envisaged by sec. 190. It is indisputable that taking
cognizance of an offence under sec. 190 is a purely judical function
subject to judicial review by court of appeal or revision to which
the Magistrate is subject. Cognizance of an offence even if H
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions has to be taken by the
Magistrate because section 193 precludes it from taking cognizance
548 SUPRFMB COURT REPORTS (1983] 2 s.c.lt
•
of any offence when it provides that no Court of .Sessions shall
A .take cognizance of any offence as a court . of original jurisdiction
unless the accused has been committed by the Magistrate under the
Code. Thus even . in case of an offence exclusively triable by
the Court of Sessions, the police report on completion of in-
vestigation has to be submitted to the Magistrate having jurisdic·
tion to commi.t the accused for trial. It is the Magistrate who takes
B cognizance of the offence and not the Court of Sessions though the
case is one exclusively triable by the latter. Sec. 170 directs that if •
the accused in respect of whom police report is being submitted is
in police custody, be has to be forwarded alongwith the police report
to the Magistrate. When the Magistrate receives the repqrt and
c the accused is produced before him it is necessary for him to pass
some order for his further detention subject to provisions contained
in Chapter XXXIIf as to Bails and Bonds. The view taken by the
High Court makes it a necessity for the Magistrate to release the
accused on bail even if "the accused is not otherwise entitled to the
discretionary order of bail nor he applies for nor is ready to furnish
D bail only because the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to keep
•
the accused in custody till an order committing the accused
for trial is made. The High Court referred to sec. 209 which
provides that the . Magistrate shall commit the accused to Court of
Sessions and subject to the provisions of the Code relating to bail,
remand the accused to custody during and until the conclusion
E of the trial. This according to the High Court implies that the
Magistrate can exercise power to release on bail or remand to the
custody the accused only after making the order of commitment
but the Magistrate has no such power anterior to the order· of
' .
commitment and during !be interregnum since the receipt of the
F charge-sheet. This dichotomy read by the High Court in secs.
207 and 209 is certainly not borne out by the provisions of the Code.
Sec. 207 as it then stood made it obligatory for the Magistrate to
supply free of costs, copies of the documents set out in the section.
The duty cast on the Magistrate by sec. 207 had to be performed
in a judicial manner. To comply with sec. 207 which ·is cast in
G a mandatory language, when the accused is produced before the
Magistrate, he has to enquire from the accused by recording his
statement whether the copies of the various documents set out in
sec. 207 have been supplied to him or not. No order committing
H the accused to the Court of Sessions can be made under sec. 209
unless the Magistrate fully complies with the provisions ·of sec. 207.
And if it is shown that the copies of relevant documents or some
U.P. STATE V. LAXMI BilAHMAN (088ai, J.) • Slf9
of them are not supplied, the matter will have to be adjourned to.get the
copies prepared and supplied to the accused. This is implicit in section A
207 and sec. 209 provides that on being satisfied that the requisite
copies have been supplied to the accused, the Magistrate may proceed
to commit the accused to the Court of Sessions to stand his trial.
• The statutory obligation imposed by sec. 207 read with sec. 209
on the Magistrate to furnish free of costs copies of documents is a
judicial obligation. It is not an administrative function. It is a :I
judicial function which is to be discharged in a judicial manner. It
is distinctly possible that the copies may not be ready. That makes
it necessary to adjourn the matter for some time which nay be
spent in preparing the copies atid supplying the same to the accused.
The Magistrate can proceed to commit the accused for trial to the C
Court of Sessions only after he judicially discharges ·the function
imposed upon him by sec. 207. This conclusion is fortified by the
provisions contained in Chapter XVIII which prescribed the proce·
dure for trial of a case by Court of Sessions. Sec. 226 provides
for opening the case for the prosecution. Sec. 227 confers power on
the Court of Sessions to discharge the ·accused if upon consideration D
of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, the •
Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. No duty is cast on the Court of Sessions
to enquire before proceeding to hear the case of the prosecution
) under sec. 226 to ascertain whether the copies of the documents E
have been furnished to the accused because section 207 casts the
b ligation upon the Magisrate to perform the judicial function.

Now, if under sec. 207, the Magistrate is performing a
judicial function of ascertaining whether copies have been supplied
or not, it would undoubtedly be an inquiry for the purpose of satis- F
fying himself that sec. 207 has .been complied with in 'letter and
spirit. That satisfaction has to be judicial satisfaction. It is not a
trial but something other than . a trial and being judicial function
it would necessanly be an inquiry. The making of an order·
committing the accused to the Court of Sessions will equally be a G
stage in the inquify and the inquiry culminates in making the order
of commitment. Thus, from the time the accused appears or is
produced before the Magistrate with the police report under sec. 170
and the Magistrate proceeds to' enquire ·whether sec. 207 has been
complied with and then proceeds to commit the accused to the II
Court of Sessions, the proceeding before the Magistrate would be an
inquiry as contelllplated by sec. Z(g) of the Co\le. We find it difficult
sso l!UPREME .COURT REPORTS [1983] 2 s.c.R.

to agree with the High Court that the function discharged by the
A Magistrate under sec. 207 is something other than a judicial function
and while discharging the function the Magistrate is not holding an
inquiry as contemplated by the Code. If the Magistrate is hblding
the inquiry obviously sec. 309 would enable the Magistrate to
remand the accused to the custody till the inquiry to be made is
B complete. Sub-sec. 2 of sec. 309 provides that if the Court, after
taking cognizance of an offence or commencement of trial, finds it
necessary.or advisable to postpone the commencement or adjourn
any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be
recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks
fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant
c remand the accused ifm custody. There are three provisos to sub-
sec. 2 which are not material. If, therefore, the proceedings before
the Magistrate since the submission of ·the police report under sec.
170 and till the order of commitment is made under sec. 209 would
be an inquiry and if it is an inquiry, during the period, the inquiry •
·is completed, sec. 309(2) would enable the Magistrate to remand
D
the accused to the custody. Therefore with respect, the High Court
committed an error in holding "that the order remanding the
respondents to custody, made after cognizance of offence was taken
cannot be justified under section 167(2), 209 and 309 of the Code
and no other provision under which the respondents can be remand-
E ed to custody at this .stage, has been indicated by the learned Govern- ' .
ment Advocate, we feel that it would be proper to acce.de to the
request made by the respondents and to direct that they would be
released on bail after furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction
of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda."

The view taken by the High ·Court introduces a stage of
"compulsory bail not envisaged l:iy the Code, and therefore, also the
view of the High Court cannot be upheld. According to the High
Court after the accused is brought before the court alongwith the
police report, the Magistrate must forthwith commit the accused
to the Court of Sessions because the Magistrate would have no
jurisdiction in the absence of any provision to remand the accused
to custody till the order committing the case to Court of Sessions
is made. The view with respect is wholly untenable and must be
set aside. ---
H
Mr. Prithviraj, learned counsel, drew our. attention to the
decision of this Court in Gauri Shanker Jha v. Th.e State of" Bihar
u. P. STATE v LAXMI BRAHMAN (Desai, J.) 551

and Ors·(•) This case is of no assistance .because it dealt with the
situation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which did A
require the Magistrate to be satisfied with prima facie case before
an order committing an accused to the Court of Sessions could
be made.

In view of the discussion, this appeal is allowed and the order B
of the High Court granting bail to the respondents on the short
ground that they could not be remanded to the custody before the
order committing them to the Court of Sessions is made, is set aside,
However, if in the meantime, the trial is over, no question of taking
the respondents into custody pursuant to the order would arise.

H.L.C. Appeal allowed.
c

'

•

-' L [1972] 3 SCR 129,