Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Jabber Kasamali Sheikh, was convicted under Section 326 IPC by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mumbai, for causing grievous hurt. He was originally charged under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) along with his wife (accused No.2), who was acquitted. The conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal. In the revision application, the petitioner challenged the conviction solely on the ground that the Assistant Sessions Judge lacked jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 307 IPC, as that offence is punishable with life imprisonment, whereas an Assistant Sessions Judge can only impose imprisonment up to ten years. The court rejected this argument, holding that the Assistant Sessions Judge is a Judge of the Court of Sessions and has jurisdiction to try all offences triable by the Court of Sessions, regardless of the maximum sentence. The power to impose sentence is a separate matter from the power to try. The court noted that the petitioner was ultimately convicted under Section 326 IPC, which is also triable by a Magistrate, but the trial by the Assistant Sessions Judge was not invalid. The revision application was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Jurisdiction of Assistant Sessions Judge - Trial of Offences Triable by Court of Sessions - Section 307 IPC, Section 28(2) CrPC - The issue was whether an Assistant Sessions Judge, who can impose imprisonment up to ten years, has jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 307 IPC which is punishable with life imprisonment. The court held that the Assistant Sessions Judge, being a Judge of the Court of Sessions, has jurisdiction to try all offences triable by the Court of Sessions, including Section 307 IPC. The power to impose sentence is not determinative of jurisdiction to try. The trial and conviction by the Assistant Sessions Judge was valid. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an Assistant Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 307 IPC, which is punishable with life imprisonment, given that an Assistant Sessions Judge can only impose imprisonment up to ten years?
Final Decision
The revision application is dismissed. The conviction and sentence under Section 326 IPC are upheld.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Assistant Sessions Judge to try offences triable by Court of Sessions
- Distinction between power to try and power to impose sentence
- Section 307 IPC triable by Court of Sessions includes Assistant Sessions Judge
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (06) 69
Criminal Revision Application No. 250 of 2010
Mr. Nitin Pradhan a/w. Ms. Mahalaxmi Ganapati, i/b. Ms. S.D.Khot, Advocates for the petitioner; Mr. D.R.More, Addl. P.P. a/w. Mr. S.N.Gawade, APP, for the respondent No.1 - State.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application challenging conviction under Section 326 IPC on ground of lack of jurisdiction of Assistant Sessions Judge to try offence under Section 307 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought setting aside of conviction and sentence on the ground that the trial by Assistant Sessions Judge was void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was convicted under Section 326 IPC by Assistant Sessions Judge, which was upheld in appeal; he challenged the conviction on jurisdictional grounds.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted accused No.1 under Section 326 IPC and acquitted accused No.2; appeal dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge.
Issues
Whether an Assistant Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 307 IPC, which is punishable with life imprisonment, given that an Assistant Sessions Judge can only impose imprisonment up to ten years?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that since Section 307 IPC is punishable with life imprisonment, it must be tried by a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge who can impose life imprisonment, and the Assistant Sessions Judge lacks jurisdiction.
Respondent argued that the Assistant Sessions Judge is a Judge of the Court of Sessions and has jurisdiction to try all offences triable by the Court of Sessions, regardless of the maximum sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
An Assistant Sessions Judge, being a Judge of the Court of Sessions, has jurisdiction to try all offences triable by the Court of Sessions, including those punishable with life imprisonment. The power to impose sentence is not determinative of jurisdiction to try. The trial and conviction by the Assistant Sessions Judge was valid.
Judgment Excerpts
He contended that as the Assistant Sessions Judge has power to award sentence of imprisonment upto ten years and not life imprisonment he does not have jurisdiction to try and dispose of the case under Section 307 IPC.
Learned APP contended that the Asstt. Sessions Judge, being Judge of Court of Sessions, has jurisdiction to try all offences triable by Court of Sessions.
Procedural History
Crime No.232/2007 was registered under Section 307 IPC at Pydhnie Police Station. Charge sheet filed under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Case committed to Sessions Court and registered as Sessions Case No.105/2008. Made over to Assistant Sessions Judge for trial. Assistant Sessions Judge convicted accused No.1 under Section 326 IPC and acquitted accused No.2. Appeal (Criminal Appeal No.213/2009) dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge. Present revision filed.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 307, 326, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 28(2)
