Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a complaint filed by the Registrar of Companies alleging a conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts in respect of a company's funds. The Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, directed a police investigation, following which proceedings were instituted against the appellants under Section 120B read with Sections 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After examining a large number of witnesses and tendering several documents, the Magistrate committed the accused to stand trial before the Court of Sessions. The accused challenged the committal order before the High Court in revision, but the application was summarily dismissed. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that there was no evidence justifying the commitment and that under Section 209(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, a charge could be framed only if the evidence was sufficient for conviction. The State defended the order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of satisfaction required of a committing Magistrate under Section 207A is not whether the evidence is sufficient for conviction, but whether there is some credible evidence on which a conviction may reasonably be based. The Court observed that the underlying principle of Section 209, though applicable to cases instituted otherwise than on a police report, also applies to police-report cases. It clarified that if there is no prima facie evidence or the evidence is totally unworthy of credit, the Magistrate must discharge the accused; otherwise, he must commit the case. On the facts, the Court found that there was some evidence against the appellants, and the evidence was not so unworthy of credit that a conviction could not be based upon it. Consequently, the committal order was proper, and the High Court's refusal to interfere in revision was justified. The decision affirms the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction against committal orders and reiterates that the committing court performs a screening, not a trial, function.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Committal Proceedings - Standard of Proof - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sections 207A, 209 - The committing Magistrate need not be satisfied that the evidence is sufficient for conviction; it is sufficient that there is some credible evidence which, if unrebutted, could sustain a conviction. The principle underlying Section 209, though applicable to cases instituted otherwise than on a police report, also governs cases instituted on a police report. Held that if there is no prima facie evidence or the evidence is totally unworthy of credit, the accused must be discharged; otherwise, the case must be committed to trial (Paras 525 A-C). B) Criminal Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Interference with Committal - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 207A - The High Court will not ordinarily interfere in revision against an order of commitment unless there is no evidence at all or the evidence is wholly unworthy of credit to sustain a conviction. Held that on the facts, there was some evidence, and the High Court's summary dismissal of the revision was justified (Paras 525 A-C).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Magistrate holding committal proceedings under Section 207A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 must be satisfied that the evidence would justify conviction, or whether it is sufficient if there is some credible evidence on which a conviction may reasonably be based
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The Court held that the evidence was not so unworthy of credit that a conviction could not be based on it, and the Magistrate had correctly applied the test of sufficiency for commitment, not conviction.
Law Points
- A committing Magistrate under Section 207A CrPC need only be satisfied that there is prima facie evidence
- not that it is sufficient for conviction
- if evidence is wholly unworthy of credit
- discharge is warranted
- High Court will not interfere in revision against committal unless no evidence at all
