Supreme Court clarifies the scope of revisional powers under Section 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in land fraud case: Rajendra Rajoriya vs. Jagat Narain Thapak (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 23 February 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 147

Judges: N. V. Ramana, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Can a Sessions Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, make observations on the merits of a case and direct a Magistrate to register a complaint? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a criminal appeal concerning allegations of land fraud and offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court clarified the extent of revisional powers under Section 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), emphasizing the need for Magistrates to apply their independent minds while taking cognizance of a complaint.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and directing the trial court to reconsider the complaint afresh, without being influenced by any observations made by the Supreme Court.

Case Background

The appellant, Rajendra Rajoriya, filed a complaint with the police alleging that Smt. Vidhyabai and others had fraudulently sold his land to respondent no. 1, Jagat Narain Thapak. The complaint also accused the respondents of using casteist slurs and threats, thereby committing offenses under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. When the police failed to take action, the appellant approached the Jurisdictional Magistrate, Gwalior, under Section 200 of the CrPC.

The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint on 21.04.2012, citing insufficient proof of the appellant’s caste and the civil nature of the dispute. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Court, which on 07.12.2012, held that the appellant belonged to a Scheduled Caste and that the land transfer was illegal. The Sessions Court remanded the case back to the Magistrate for further inquiry and directed the parties to appear before the court on 20.12.2012.

On remand, the Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offenses under Sections 420, 467, 471, and 120B of the IPC and Section 3(1)(4) of the SC/ST Act, registering the complaint as Criminal Case No. 1576/2013 on 23.01.2013. The Magistrate noted that the Revisional Court had already found sufficient ground for initiating proceedings.

The respondents then challenged the Sessions Court’s remand order and the Magistrate’s cognizance order before the High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gwalior, initially dismissed the appellant’s complaint, stating that there was insufficient proof that the appellant belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and that the dispute appeared to be civil in nature.

The Sessions Court, in Criminal Revision No. 242/2012, overturned the Magistrate’s order, holding that the appellant belonged to the Jatav community, a Scheduled Caste, and that the facts suggested an illegal land transfer. The Sessions Court remanded the case back to the Magistrate for further inquiry.

The High Court, in Criminal Revision No. 104/2013, allowed the respondent’s revision petition and quashed the complaint. The High Court reasoned that the Sessions Court could not have taken cognizance on 23.01.2013, as it violated Section 398 of the CrPC.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the scope of revisional powers under Section 397 and 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

Section 397 of the CrPC, titled “Calling for records to exercise powers of revision,” allows the High Court or any Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order.

Section 397(1) of the CrPC states:

“(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order,- recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.”

Section 398 of the CrPC, titled “Power to order inquiry,” empowers the High Court or the Sessions Judge to direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate to make a further inquiry into any complaint dismissed under Section 203 or sub-section (4) of Section 204, or into the case of any person accused of an offense who has been discharged.

Section 398 of the CrPC states:

“On examining any record under section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under section 203 of Sub-Section (4) of section 204 or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged: Provided that no Court shall make any direction under this section for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made.”

The Court clarified that Section 398 must be read in conjunction with Sections 399 and 401 of the CrPC, which also pertain to the powers of the revisional court.

Arguments

The respondent argued that the Sessions Judge could not have made observations on the merits of the case, as this amounted to taking cognizance of the matter, which is beyond the scope of revisional jurisdiction. The respondent contended that the Sessions Court’s order was equivalent to directing the Magistrate to register the complaint, which is not permissible under Section 398 of the CrPC.

The appellant contended that the Sessions Court’s order was merely a remand order for further inquiry, and the observations made were only to justify the remand. The appellant argued that the Sessions Court did not take cognizance of the matter.

The respondent argued that the Magistrate, while taking cognizance, was influenced by the observations of the Sessions Court.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Legality of the remand order passed by the Sessions Court.
2. Legality of the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance thereafter.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.
• Section 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Power to order inquiry.
• Section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Sessions Judge’s powers of revision.
• Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – High Court’s powers of revision.

The Supreme Court also considered the following case:

• Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh & Another, (2012) 3 SCC 64 – This case was used to explain the meaning of the word ‘cognizance’.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Court’s order was a remand order for further inquiry and did not amount to taking cognizance. The observations made by the Sessions Court were only to justify the remand.

The Supreme Court also held that the Magistrate, while taking cognizance, did not apply his independent mind and was influenced by the Sessions Court’s observations.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and directed the trial court to consider the complaint afresh, without being influenced by any observations made by the Supreme Court or the Sessions Court.

Treatment of Submissions

Treatment of Authorities

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the need for Magistrates to apply their independent minds while taking cognizance of a complaint. The Court noted that the Sessions Court’s observations were only to justify the remand and did not amount to taking cognizance. The Court also noted that the Magistrate, while taking cognizance, was influenced by the Sessions Court’s observations, which is not permissible.

The Court reiterated that while taking cognizance, the Magistrate has to satisfy himself about the satisfactory grounds to proceed with the complaint and at this stage the consideration should not be whether there is sufficient ground for conviction.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

✓ The Sessions Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 and 398 of the CrPC, can order further inquiry but should not make observations that amount to taking cognizance of the matter.

✓ The Magistrate, while taking cognizance of a complaint, must apply his independent mind and should not be influenced by observations made by the Sessions Court.

✓ The judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in criminal proceedings and the need for judicial officers to exercise their powers judiciously.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the trial court to proceed with the case afresh, uninfluenced by any observations made by the Supreme Court or the Sessions Court.

Specific Amendments Analysis

No specific amendments were discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 398 of the CrPC, the Sessions Court can order further inquiry but cannot make observations on merits that amount to taking cognizance. Additionally, the Magistrate must apply an independent mind while taking cognizance and should not be influenced by the observations of the Sessions Court. This clarifies the scope of revisional powers and the duties of the Magistrate, ensuring procedural fairness in criminal proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajendra Rajoriya vs. Jagat Narain Thapak clarifies the scope of revisional powers under Section 398 of the CrPC and emphasizes the importance of independent application of mind by Magistrates while taking cognizance of a complaint. The Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and directed the trial court to reconsider the complaint afresh, without being influenced by any previous observations. This judgment reinforces the principles of procedural fairness and judicial independence in the Indian criminal justice system.