Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triableexclusively by it
Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triableexclusively by it. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it. The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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 207 or section 208, as the case may be, the case to the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such commitment has been made;]
(b) subject to the provisions of this Code 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.
Section 209, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 232 Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it Close, with changes 83%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception in criminal procedure. The presumption of innocence, being a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, places the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt. Courts must exercise their discretion in granting or refusing bail judiciously, considering all relevant factors including the nature and gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the conduct of the accused during investigation, the delay in trial, and the likelihood of the accused absconding. Investigating agencies must comply with Section 41 and 41A of the CrPC by recording reasons for arrest and for not arresting. Non-compliance with these provisions entitles the accused to bail. Courts must act as guardians of liberty and ensure that personal liberty is protected in accordance with the procedure established by law.
On this section: Commitment of case to Court of Session; remand to custody during trial
-
Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of considering discharge application under Section 227 Cr.PC, the court must confine its consideration to 'the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith' (prosecution materials only) and determine whether a prima facie case exists based on grave suspicion emerging from such materials. Mere suspicion, supposition, or conjecture not founded on materials on record cannot justify framing charges. In cases of criminal conspiracy, there must be at least an allegation of agreement between conspirators; absent such allegation or evidence of agreement in prosecution materials, charges of conspiracy cannot be framed merely on basis of suspicious circumstances. The court is not a mere post office of prosecution but must exercise independent judicial mind to protect accused from frivolous prosecution, especially at pre-trial stage.
On this section: Commitment of case to Court of Session; defines what constitutes 'record of case and documents' that must be sent to higher court; directly referenced in Section 227 interpretation
-
Balveer Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a Magistrate actively considers an application for cognizance, applies independent mind, and deliberately refuses cognizance of certain offences before committing case to Sessions Court, the Sessions Court can still take cognizance of those offences on a fresh application by the complainant, because: (1) Sessions Court is acting as court of original jurisdiction under Section 193 and cognizance taken by it is first cognizance for jurisdictional purposes; (2) The Magistrate's refusal order does not attain absolute finality that bars Sessions Court's revisional jurisdiction; (3) No valuable right accrues from such refusal order as it is not final adjudication on merits; and (4) Provided proper opportunity of hearing is given to the accused before Sessions Court takes such cognizance, the action is constitutionally valid. The distinction between Magistrate playing 'active role' (taking/refusing cognizance after hearing) versus 'passive role' (merely forwarding for commitment) becomes relevant when Magistrate has already actively decided against cognizance, but does not create an absolute bar.
On this section: Committal of case to Court of Session - crucial provision interpreted to mean Magistrate plays passive role when simply committing case without taking cognizance, versus active role when taking cognizance before committing.
-
Vijay @ Vijayakumar vs State Represented By Inspector Of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part 1 IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, it held that the sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the high court should be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. The Court reasoned that although Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC regarding grave and sudden provocation may not have been fully established, the act was not premeditated or planned, the appellant had no weapon in advance, and the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence to time already served.
On this section: Commitment of cases to Court of Sessions
-
Suman vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person who is named in a first information report or complaint with allegation of committing a particular crime or offence, but against whom the police does not file a charge-sheet or drops the case, can be proceeded against under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure if from the evidence collected or produced in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence, the court is prima facie satisfied that such person has committed any offence for which such person can be tried with other accused. The non-filing of charge-sheet by police against such person is not a bar to invoking the jurisdiction of the court under Section 319 CrPC.
On this section: Commitment to Sessions Court; relationship with Section 319 regarding taking cognizance of offence
-
Dr. L.sudhakar vs P.rama Krishna Reddy
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Evidence of medical doctors in criminal negligence cases constitutes substantive evidence and cannot be admitted through notarized affidavits under Section 296 Cr.P.C. The procedure prescribed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for examination of complainant and witnesses upon oath, with substance reduced to writing and signed by all parties, is mandatory and cannot be defeated by adopting alternative procedures such as notarized affidavits, even if more convenient. The legality of interlocutory orders can be examined in a revision filed against final orders, notwithstanding that no direct revision lies against interlocutory orders.
On this section: Procedure after examination of witnesses in Sessions Cases - cited in the earlier remand order
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 209
What have the courts held on Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation (11 Jul 2022) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Commitment of case to Court of Session; remand to custody during trial. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 5 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 209, section 209 CRPC, section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation (11 Jul 2022).
What should I read with Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 207 (Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents), section 208 (Supply of copies of statements and documents to accused in other casestriable by Court of Session), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 232 (Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 209, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.