Case Note & Summary
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a charge-sheet against eight accused for offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468, 471, and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. The CBI filed an application for tendering pardon to accused No. 2, Rajendra K. Jhunjhunwala. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) granted the pardon and committed the case to the Court of Session under Section 306(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The respondents (original accused Nos. 1, 6, and 8) filed an application seeking remand of the case to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), arguing that the ACMM lacked the power to commit the case directly. The Special Judge for CBI allowed the application, remanding the case to the CMM. The CBI challenged this order. The High Court considered whether an ACMM is equivalent to a CMM under Section 306 CrPC. The court held that under Section 17(2) of the CrPC, an ACMM exercises all powers of a CMM, but Section 306(5) specifically requires that when a CMM grants pardon, the case must be committed to the Court of Session. However, the ACMM, not being a CMM, must make over the case to the CMM for committal. The court found that the ACMM's order of committal was not in accordance with law, and the Special Judge correctly remanded the case to the CMM. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Tender of Pardon - Section 306 CrPC - Powers of ACMM - The issue was whether an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) can commit a case to the Court of Session after granting pardon under Section 306(4) CrPC, or whether the case must be made over to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) for committal. The court held that an ACMM is not equivalent to a CMM under Section 306 CrPC, and the ACMM must make over the case to the CMM for committal. The impugned order remanding the case to the CMM was upheld. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) is equivalent to a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) for the purposes of Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the ACMM's order of committal to the Court of Session after granting pardon under Section 306(4) is valid or should be remanded to the CMM.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the order of the Special Judge remanding the case to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The rule was discharged.
Law Points
- Section 306 CrPC
- Section 17 CrPC
- Section 29 CrPC
- Tender of Pardon
- Committal to Court of Session
- Powers of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (07) 179
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1737 of 2009
D. N. Salvi, A. S. Gadkari for Petitioner; H. H. Nagi, Nam Joshi for Respondents; M. R. Tidke, APP for State
Central Bureau of Investigation
Dilip Sudhakar Pendse, Nalini Properties Pvt. Ltd., Anuradha Dilip Pendse, State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging order of Special Judge remanding case to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate after ACMM granted pardon and committed case to Sessions Court.
Remedy Sought
CBI sought quashing of the order dated 7th March 2009 passed by the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Greater Mumbai, which allowed the respondents' application for remanding the case to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
Filing Reason
The CBI challenged the Special Judge's order on the ground that the ACMM had validly committed the case to the Court of Session under Section 306(4) CrPC, and the Special Judge erred in remanding it to the CMM.
Previous Decisions
The ACMM granted pardon to accused No. 2 on 10th September 2008 and committed the case to the Court of Session on 16th September 2008. The Special Judge allowed the respondents' application for remand on 7th March 2009.
Issues
Whether an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) is equivalent to a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) for the purposes of Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
Whether the order of committal passed by the ACMM under Section 306(4) CrPC is valid, or should the case be made over to the CMM for committal?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner (CBI): The ACMM is bestowed with all powers of the CMM under Section 17(2) CrPC, and the order of committal was a judicial order; the Sessions Judge erred in interfering and remanding the matter to the CMM.
Respondents: The ACMM is not on par with the CMM; under Section 306 CrPC, the ACMM ought to have made over the case to the CMM instead of committing it directly to the Court of Session.
Ratio Decidendi
An Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) is not equivalent to a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) for the purposes of Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Under Section 306(5), when a CMM grants pardon, the case must be committed to the Court of Session. However, an ACMM, not being a CMM, must make over the case to the CMM for committal. The ACMM's direct order of committal is not in accordance with law, and the Special Judge correctly remanded the case to the CMM.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the 'CBI' for short) challenges the order dated 7th March 2009 passed by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Greater Mumbai thereby allowing the miscellaneous application filed by the respondents (original accused Nos. 1, 6 and 8) for remanding back the case to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as the 'CMM' for short), Mumbai.
Mr. Salvi, the learned Special Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the learned Sessions Judge has passed the order by misreading the provisions of Sections 17, 29 and 306 (5) of the Code.
Mr. Nagi, the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the contrary, submits that the ACMM cannot be equated with the CMM.
Procedural History
CBI filed charge-sheet against eight accused. CBI applied for pardon to accused No. 2, which was granted by ACMM on 10th September 2008. ACMM committed case to Sessions Court on 16th September 2008. Respondents filed application for remand to CMM, which was allowed by Special Judge on 7th March 2009. CBI filed writ petition challenging that order. High Court dismissed petition on July 2011.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 17, 29, 306, 306(4), 306(5)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 120-B, 420, 468, 471, 477-A
