Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Prabhakar @ Babu Laxman Pawar, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), challenging an order dated 26/12/2011 passed by the 3rd Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. The Assistant Sessions Judge had dismissed the petitioner's application challenging his jurisdiction to try Sessions Case No.29 of 2010, wherein the accused was charged under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which is punishable with life imprisonment. The petitioner contended that under Section 28(3) CrPC, an Assistant Sessions Judge can only impose a maximum sentence of ten years, and therefore lacks jurisdiction to try offences carrying life imprisonment. The State of Maharashtra and the Principal Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, were respondents. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 28 CrPC, which deals with the sentences that Magistrates and Judges can pass. Section 28(1) empowers a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge to pass any sentence authorized by law, including life imprisonment. Section 28(2) empowers an Assistant Sessions Judge to pass any sentence authorized by law, but a sentence of death or imprisonment for life or for a term exceeding ten years must be confirmed by the Sessions Judge. Section 28(3) states that the Court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate may pass any sentence except death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment exceeding seven years. The court noted that the petitioner's argument conflated jurisdiction to try with power to sentence. The court held that an Assistant Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try any offence, including those punishable with life imprisonment, but if he considers that a sentence beyond ten years is appropriate, he must refer the case to the Sessions Judge for sentencing. The court relied on the principle that jurisdiction to try is distinct from the power to sentence. The petition was dismissed, upholding the Assistant Sessions Judge's order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Jurisdiction of Assistant Sessions Judge - Section 28(3) CrPC - Trial of Offences Punishable with Life Imprisonment - The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Assistant Sessions Judge to try a case under Section 326 IPC, which carries life imprisonment, arguing that Section 28(3) CrPC limits the sentencing power of an Assistant Sessions Judge to ten years. The court held that Section 28(3) CrPC does not bar the trial of offences punishable with life imprisonment by an Assistant Sessions Judge; it only restricts the sentence that can be imposed. The Assistant Sessions Judge can try such offences but must commit the case to the Sessions Court if a sentence beyond ten years is warranted. (Paras 1-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an Assistant Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try an offence punishable with life imprisonment under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, in light of Section 28(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Assistant Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 326 IPC, and the order of the Assistant Sessions Judge dated 26/12/2011 is upheld.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Assistant Sessions Judge
- Section 28(3) CrPC
- Section 326 IPC
- Life imprisonment
- Trial by Assistant Sessions Judge
