Law and You >Procedural Laws > BNSS > Committal of Cases to the Court of Session (Ss. 210, 213, 230, 231, and 232 BNSS)
In the Indian criminal justice system, the classification of offences into those triable by Magistrates and those triable by the Court of Session ensures that cases are tried by courts of appropriate jurisdiction based on the gravity of the offence. Certain serious offences — such as murder, rape, and dacoity, etc. are considered so severe that they are exclusively triable by a Court of Session. The procedure for transferring such cases from a Magistrate’s Court to a Sessions Court (Committal of Cases to the Court of Session), and is governed by Section 232 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha sanhita, 2023. This article explores the legal framework, procedural requirements, and judicial interpretation surrounding the committal of cases to Court of Session under the BNSS.
Chapter XIX of BNSS containing Sections 248 to 260 prescribes provisions for the trial before the Court of Session. The offences that will be tried by which specific court are provided under The First Schedule of the BNSS. In cases where the crimes carry penalty of death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment exceeding seven years, the trial takes place in a Sessions Court after Magistrate takes cognizance and commits it to Session Court.
S. 210 BNSS:
Cognizance of Offences by Magistrate:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence—
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts, including any complaint filed by a person authorised under any special law, which constitutes such offence;
(b) upon a police report (submitted in any mode including electronic mode) of such facts;
(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.
Section 210 of the BNSS governs how a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offense by receiving a complaint, a police report, or other information, including their own knowledge. The Chief Judicial Magistrate can empower a second-class Magistrate to take cognizance of offenses within their jurisdiction.
In R.R. Chari v. State of U.P., AIR 1951 SC 207 case, the Supreme Court has opined that taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate as such applies his mind to the suspected commission of offence.
Under Section 210(1)(a) BNSS, a Magistrate can take cognizance upon receiving a complaint. If he applies his mind to proceed with the complaint under Sections 223 to 226 BNSS, he must be said to have taken cognizance; whereas if he applies his mind to the complaint and proceed under Section 175(3) or Section 96 BNSS, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence.
In Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 459 case, the Supreme Court has held that in complaint cases if the Magistrate does not proceed as per Sections 200, 202 or 203 CrPC (Sections 223, 225 or 226 BNSS) and has ordered investigation under section 156(3) CrPC (Sections 175(3) BNSS), or issues a search warrant for the purpose of investigation, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence.
Under Section 227(1) BNSS, if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceedings he can issue process.
Under Section 210(1)(b) BNSS, the Magistrate may also take cognizance of an offence on receiving the police report submitted in any mode including electronic mode. If he is of the opinion that prima facie the case is made out, he may straightaway issue a process. The Magistrate is not bound by the conclusion reached by the police and it is open to him to take cognizance on the basis of the police report, even though the police might have recommended in their report that no case is made out.
In Purshottam Jethanand v. State of Kutch, AIR 1954 SC 700 case, the Supreme Court held that where any Magistrate who is not empowered to take cognizance of an offence under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 190(1) CrPC (S. 210(1) BNSS), takes cognizance of such an offence under any such clause, his proceedings shall not be bad in law merely on the ground of his not being competent to do so.
Under Section 210(1)(c) BNSS, the magistrate can also take cognizance of an offense based on information received from any person other than a police officer, or from their own personal knowledge that such an offense has been committed.
If a Magistrate, not empowered to take cognizance, takes cognizance of an offence on the basis of an information received or suo-motu under section 210(1)(c) BNSS and proceeds further, his proceedings shall be void and will be of no effect as per Section 507(k) BNSS.
S. 213 BNSS:
Cognizance of Offences by Court of Session:
Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Sanhita or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Sanhita.
Section 213 of the BNSS deals with the committal of cases by a Magistrate to the Court of Session, stating that the Court of Session can only take cognizance of an offense as a court of original jurisdiction after a case has been committed to it by a Magistrate. This section establishes the Magistrate as the gatekeeper for cases moving to the Sessions Court and empowers the Sessions Court to summon additional accused persons if their involvement is evident from the case record, even if they were not named in the initial charge sheet.
It is to be noted that, the Court of Session may take cognizance without commitment by the Magistrate if so expressly provided by the Sanhita or by any other law for the time being in force. For example, in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 where Special Judge- Sessions Judge is specified to take cognizance of the offences under it instead of the Magistrate.
In Rattiram v. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 516 case, the Supreme Court held that the trial of any case, though not committed, may not be vitiated inasmuch as there is no failure of justice or no prejudice is caused to the accused person.
S. 230 BNSS:
Supply to Accused of Copy of Police Report and Other Documents:
In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay, and in no case beyond fourteen days from the date of production or appearance of the accused, furnish to the accused and the victim (if represented by an advocate) free of cost, a copy of each of the following:—
(i) the police report;
(ii) the first information report recorded under section 173;
(iii) the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of section 180 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under sub-section (7) of section 193;
(iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 183;
(v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub-section (6) of section 193:
Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to the accused:
Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any such document is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused and the victim (if represented by an advocate) with a copy thereof, may furnish the copies through electronic means or direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through an advocate in Court:
Provided also that supply of documents in electronic form shall be considered as duly furnished.
Section 230 BNSS mandates that a magistrate must provide the accused and the victim with copies of certain documents, such as the police report, FIR, and witness statements, free of cost and without delay. This is a crucial step to ensure the accused can prepare a proper defence and a fundamental right to a fair trial. The documents provided are those that the prosecution intends to rely on, though other documents not relied upon may also be provided.
S. 231 BNSS:
Supply of Copies of Statements and Documents to Accused in Other Cases Triable by Court of Session:
Where, in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, it appears to the Magistrate issuing process under section 227 that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the Magistrate shall forthwith furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:—
(i) the statements recorded under section 223 or section 225, of all persons examined by the Magistrate;
(ii) the statements and confessions, if any, recorded under section 180 or section 183;
(iii) any documents produced before the Magistrate on which the prosecution proposes to rely:
Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any such document is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through an advocate in Court:
Provided further that supply of documents in electronic form shall be considered as duly furnished.
Section 231 BNSS mandates that when a magistrate finds a case is to be tried by a Court of Session and it was not initiated by a police report, the magistrate must supply the accused, free of cost, with copies of statements and documents. These include statements recorded under Sections 223 and 225 BNSS, statements and confessions under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, and any documents the prosecution intends to rely on.
S. 232 BNSS:
Commitment of Case to Court of Session when Offence is Triable Exclusively by it:
When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall—
(a) commit, after complying with the provisions of section 230 or section 231 the case to the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this Sanhita relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such commitment has been made;
(b) subject to the provisions of this Sanhita relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during, and until the conclusion of, the trial;
(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to be produced in evidence;
(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session:
Provided that the proceedings under this section shall be completed within a period of ninety days from the date of taking cognizance, and such period may be extended by the Magistrate for a period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days for the reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided further that any application filed before the Magistrate by the accused or the victim or any person authorised by such person in a case triable by Court of Session, shall be forwarded to the Court of Session with the committal of the case.
Section 232 BNSS outlines a magistrate’s procedure when an offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The magistrate must commit the case to the Court of Session, remand the accused to custody (subject to bail provisions), send the case record and evidence to that court, and notify the Public Prosecutor. This process is an initial step to transfer the case for trial by the Court of Session.
The idea behind the provision is that the Court of Session is not required to perform all the preliminary formalities under Sections 230 to 232 BNSS which the Magistrate have to do before the case is committed to the Court of Session.
On committal, the Sessions Court shall have all the powers under section 232 BNSS. Hence, even without recording evidence, upon committal under section 232 BNSS the Session Judge may summon those persons not named as accused by the police to stand trial along with those already named therein.
In Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 case, the Supreme Court dwelled upon the scope of section 319 CrPC (S. 358 BNSS) and held that the power under section 319 CrPC can be exercised at any time after the charge sheet is filed and before the pronouncement of the judgment, except during the stage of section 207/208 CrPC (Ss. 230/231 BNSS), committal etc. The Court also held that the steps under section 207/208 CrPC (Ss. 230/231 BNSS) and committal cannot be termed as judicial steps which require only application of mind rather than application of judicial mind. The compliance of section 207 CrPC (S. 230 BNSS) and committal proceeding are administrative work. Therefore, in a case triable by Sessions Court, the Magistrate is not allowed to apply his mind to the merits of the case and determine as to whether any accused needs to be added or removed to face trial before the Sessions Court.
Conclusion:
The committal of cases to the Court of Session under Section 232 BNSS serves as a vital procedural step in ensuring that serious criminal offences are tried by courts with appropriate jurisdiction and authority. While the Magistrate’s role in such cases is limited to verifying procedural compliance and ensuring that the accused is provided with all necessary documents, the importance of this stage cannot be overstated. It ensures a fair trial process by safeguarding the legal rights of the accused and preparing the groundwork for the Sessions Court to take cognizance and proceed with framing of charges.
Through this mechanism, the BNSS maintains a clear demarcation between the roles of Magistrates and Sessions Courts, upholding the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. A sound understanding of this process is essential for legal practitioners, law enforcement authorities, and anyone involved in the criminal justice system.