K.T.Joseph vs State Of Kerala & Anr
- SCC(2009) 15 SCC 199
- Neutral2009 INSC 758
- SCR[2009] 9 SCR 20
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Following the amendment to Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with effect from 23.6.2006, it is mandatory for a Magistrate to conduct an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code when deciding whether to take cognizance of an offence on receipt of a complaint; the Magistrate cannot treat the stage as pre-cognizance or avoid the enquiry by characterizing it as such. Where a Magistrate examines the complainant and witnesses under Section 202 of the Code, he has thereby taken cognizance of the offence and cannot treat the statements as sworn statements at the pre-cognizance stage.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
K.T. Joseph ....Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala and Anr. ....Respondents
JUDGMENT
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. A small issue relating to the transfer of the proceedings in CC 1290 of
2008 on the file of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam
forms the foundation for these proceedings. By an order in Criminal
Revision Petition no.1858 of 2008 a learned Single Judge directed transfer
of the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam.
Certain observations were made against the Judicial Officer and his
conduct. Learned Single Judge has observed that after the amendment to
Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the
`Code') with effect from 23.6.2006 by Central Act 25/2005 it is
mandatory on the part of the learned Magistrate to conduct an enquiry
under Section 202 of Code. Learned Single Judge noted that the
Magistrate had emphasized that he was considering the complaint at the
pre cognizance stage which according to him was not correct. By
deciding to examine the complainant and the witnesses under Section 202
of Code, the Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offence and
he was not considering the sworn statements of the witnesses at the pre
cognizance stage. Learned Single Judge felt that enquiry was mandatory
after 23.6.2006.
2
3. The legal position is unexceptionable.
4. In the background facts we do not think that any exception can be
taken to the transfer as directed by learned Single Judge. The
observations regarding the conduct are unnecessary and stand deleted.
Learned Single Judge has directed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall
have discretion to record further sworn statements if necessary in case he
decides to take cognizance of the offence. The aforesaid observations and
directions are also in order.
5. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
.......................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
........................................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
New Delhi, May 08, 2009
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free