Miss Lucy
← All judgments

K.T.Joseph vs State Of Kerala & Anr

Supreme Court8 May 2009Asok Kumar Ganguly · Arijit Pasayat

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

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 984 OF 2009(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5734 of 2008)

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