In the judgement of the case- Mohd.Javed Abdul Wahab v. State of Maharashtra, delivered on January 29, 2026, at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, Justice Pravin S.Patil has made it distinctly clear that it would be proper and justified to remand this case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Buldhana with direction to form an opinion on the basis of the skeletal evidence and then commit the case to the Court of Sessions, if so permissible. Prior to that the HC, has expressed its considered opinion that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has failed to consider sections 323 and 325 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a right perspective. In absence of his opinion on the basis of evidence recorded before him, the commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions is not justified.

 

Through this criminal application, the applicant has questioned the order of April 30, 2024, passed by the CJM, Buldhana, in the RCC case 224 of 2018, whereby the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on the ground that the offence under section 467 IPC is punishable up to life imprisonment, which may extend to ten years, that is, of severe nature, and the CJM is empowered only to inflict punishment up to seven years. While exercising the powers, no reasons are recorded to justify the commitment of proceeding to the Sessions Court. Informant-Suman Rajput lodged complaint against the applicant, which was registered for the offence punishable under sections 429, 467, 468, 471 170, 171 read with section 34 IPC. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer had conducted probe and filed chargesheet against the applicant before the CJM, Buldhana.

 

At the later stage, in the case, the Magistrate passed the impugned order by recording the fact, that offence against the applicant is under section 467 IPC and as he was empowered to inflict punishment up to seven years only, therefore, he has committed the trial of the case to the sessions Court. In the present case, there is no discussion at the instance of the Magistrate as to how and what basis he has formulated the opinion of guilt. He has only stated that under section 467 IPC punishment is permitted up to life imprisonment or may extend to ten years, and therefore, committed the case to Sessions Court. Hence the Applicant was before the High Court. Opposing the application the counsel for the informant and the APP stated that if it appears to the Magistrate at any stage of the proceedings, the case ought to be tried by Sessions Court, he can commit it to the Court of Sessions, and therefore, while exercising these powers, section 323 of the Code nowhere provides recording of reasons in the matter. Hence, no error is committed by the Magistrate while exercising the powers; consequently, there is no force in the submission of counsel for the applicant and the application deserves to be dismissed.

 

On perusal of section 323 of the Code, it appears that after conducting an inquiry in to an offence, or a trial before the Magistrate, if it appears to the Magistrate that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Sessions, he shall commit it to that Court under the provisions of Cr.P.C. In the HC’s opinion, the Magistrate can commit the trial to the Sessions Court, but requirement under section 323 of the Code is that there should be inquiry into the offence or trial before the Magistrate and after conducting the said trial, if it appears to him that prosecution has made out a case that accused can be inflicted maximum punishment or it appears to him, trial should be by Sessions Court, then only, he can commit the case to Sessions Court. As such, to reach this conclusion, it would be necessary for the Magistrate to discuss the evidence to formulate the opinion of guilt. The said opinion cannot be formulated without discussing the evidence recorded before him. It is but obvious to discuss and record reason for formulating opinion. However, in this case, no such discussion is prima facie seen in the impugned order.

 

As per section 325 of the Code, if the Magistrate is of the opinion that after hearing the evidence for the prosecution and the accused that accused found guilty and punishment is to be imposed for which the Magistrate is not empowered, he is required to record the opinion and submit the proceedings, and forward the accused to the CJM to whom he is subordinate. In the HC’s opinion, if this mechanism is provided to submit the proceedings from Magistrate to the CJM, same procedure is required to be followed while exercising powers under section 323 of the Cr.P.C. In this case, the Magistrate himself being CJM, while committing the case to the Sessions Court, it is expected of him that in the same manner as provided under section 325, he should have formed an opinion on the basis of evidence recorded before him and submit his opinion along with proceedings to the Sessions Court. Quantum of sentence always depend upon the facts and circumstances and the role attributed to the accused in the offence. It is, therefore, necessary to record reasons, on what basis he was of the opinion that accused be inflicted maximum punishment in the case.

 

The High Court here, has partly allowed the appeal. The HC has quashed and set aside the impugned order passed on April 30, 2024 in the Regular Criminal case 224/2018 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldhana. The HC has remanded the matter back to the CJM, Buldhana for reconsidering the case and by formulating his opinion on the basis of skeletal evidence led before him by the parties and then if so necessary, by invoking the powers under section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for committing the case to the Sessions Court.