📖 Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1996) 4 SCC 495

Facts: A Magistrate, at the stage of committing a case to the Court of Session, added as an accused a person whom the police had not sent up, on material appearing in the case diary. The question was whether he had power to do so.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the function of a Magistrate at the stage of committal is essentially ministerial: where the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he is required to commit the case, and he does not try it, does not weigh the material, and does not decide whether a case is made out against anybody. The Court held that he has accordingly no power to add a person as an accused at that stage: he commits the case and with it the persons sent up, and the power to proceed against other persons belongs to the court which tries the case, once it is seised and once evidence has been taken. It reasoned that a contrary view would allow the Magistrate to make, at a ministerial stage and without trial, a decision which the statute entrusts to the trial court on evidence; and it held that the committing Magistrate must therefore confine himself to the case as it comes to him.

Ratio: The function of a Magistrate at committal is essentially ministerial: he commits the case and does not weigh the material or decide whether a case is made out. He has no power to add an accused, that power belonging to the trial court once evidence has been taken.

📖 State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39

Facts: A Sessions Judge framed charges, and the order was challenged on the footing that the material did not justify it and that at that stage the Court was required to be satisfied that the evidence would sustain a conviction.

Held: The Supreme Court held that at the stage of framing a charge in a sessions trial the Court has to consider whether there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence — and that this does not mean that the Judge must be satisfied that there is evidence sufficient to convict. It held that if the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce, taken at its face value, would establish the offence, the Court is justified in framing a charge; and that at that stage the Court is not to make a roving enquiry into whether the evidence is credible or sufficient, since it has neither been given nor tested. The Court held that a strong suspicion founded on material which, if unrebutted, would lead to a conviction is enough; but that where the material is such that even taken at its highest it would not sustain the charge, the accused should be discharged. It emphasised that the enquiry at that stage is necessarily limited, and that the balance struck is between not putting a man to trial without ground and not stifling a prosecution before it has been heard.

Ratio: At the charge stage the Court asks whether there is ground for presuming that the accused committed the offence — not whether the evidence would sustain a conviction. Evidence which taken at face value would establish the offence justifies a charge.

⚠ Four propositions

Committal is a ministerial step, not a judicial one. The Magistrate does not weigh the material, does not decide whether a case is made out, and does not try the offence. The screening belongs to the Sessions Court at the stage of discharge.

And he cannot add an accused at committal. He commits the case, and with it the persons the report names; adding a person is for the trial court, once it is seised and once evidence has been taken.

The test at charge is ground for presuming. A strong suspicion, founded on material which if unrebutted would lead to a conviction, is enough. Material which taken at its highest would not sustain the charge requires a discharge.

And the Court does not try the case at that stage. It does not weigh the evidence as at a trial, does not consider the defence, and does not ask whether a conviction is likely.

The position stated shortly

1. The two procedures are structurally the same; what differs is the court, the gravity, the route, and the sentence.

2. A sessions trial is for offences triable exclusively by the Court of Session; a warrant trial for other offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years.

3. A Court of Session may not take cognizance directly save as expressly provided: the case reaches it by committal under section 232, within ninety days.

4. In a sessions trial the Public Prosecutor opens the case under section 248, describing the charge and the evidence by which he proposes to prove it.

5. Discharge: section 250 (sessions, within sixty days of committal), section 262 (warrant, police report), section 268 (warrant, complaint). Charge: sections 251 and 263.

6. A Court of Session may pass any sentence authorised by law, but a death sentence requires confirmation by the High Court under section 407. A Magistrate is limited by section 23.

7. Committal is ministerial. The Magistrate does not weigh the material or decide whether a case is made out: Raj Kishore Prasad.

8. And he has no power to add an accused at committal — that belongs to the trial court, once evidence has been taken.

9. At the charge stage the Court asks whether there is ground for presuming the accused committed the offence — not whether the evidence would sustain a conviction: Ramesh Singh.

10. Evidence which taken at face value would establish the offence justifies a charge; material which taken at its highest would not sustain it requires a discharge.