Certain Judges and Magistrates not to try certain offences whencommitted before themselves

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.

1. Pannaram vs State of Rajasthan

   High Court 03 Jul 2006 Persuasive (Other High Court)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   A Judicial Magistrate who files a complaint against an accused and takes cognizance of the offence cannot try the case, as it violates the absolute prohibition under Section 352 Criminal Procedure Code and the fundamental principle of natural justice that no man can be a judge in his own cause (Nemo Debet Esse Judex In Propria Sua Causa). The prohibition is personal to the officer and not to the office, therefore the matter can be remanded to the same office if a different judicial officer is now working there.

   On this section: Section 352 provides that except as provided in Sections 344, 345, 349 and 350 CrPC, no Magistrate shall try any person for any offence referred to in Section 195 CrPC when such offence is committed before himself or in the contempt of his authority. The court held that this prohibition is absolute and prevents a Magistrate who filed the complaint from trying the case.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Bhawani Singh vs State of Rajasthan through P P.

   High Court 26 Nov 2013 Persuasive (Other High Court)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   The ratio decidendi of this judgment is that: (1) Section 352 CrPC operates only when the same magistrate who witnessed the offence tries the case. If a different magistrate is holding charge at the time of trial, Section 352 does not apply. (2) A magistrate acting in official public capacity is not deemed personally interested under Section 479 CrPC, and the Explanation to Section 479 specifically clarifies this. (3) The title given to a document does not determine its legal nature. If allegations are made to a magistrate with a view to taking action, it constitutes a complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC regardless of the title. (4) A complaint filed under valid provisions of law (Section 180F of Indian Railways Act 1989) is not vitiated merely because the charge-sheet title incorrectly cites repealed provisions (Indian Railways Act 1890). (5) Section 195 CrPC bar does not apply to Section 224 IPC offence, hence defences available to co-accused under Section 195 are not available to accused charged under Section 224 IPC. (6) Prima facie evidence of commission of offence is sufficient to sustain cognizance and proceed with prosecution.

   On this section: Prohibition on judge or magistrate trying offences committed before themselves. Court held that this section operates only when same officer who witnessed offence tries the case. Here, different magistrate was holding charge at time of trial, so Section 352 not violated.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

3. Dinesh vs State of Rajasthan through P P.

   High Court 26 Nov 2013 Persuasive (Other High Court)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When prima facie evidence of criminal offenses exists and the substance of allegations constitutes a valid complaint under law, procedural defects in the form or title of documents do not vitiate the cognizance or proceedings. The bar under Section 352 Criminal Procedure Code applies only when the same magistrate who witnessed the offense tries the case; if a different magistrate conducts the trial, the bar does not apply. A magistrate acting in his public capacity is not deemed personally interested under Section 479 Criminal Procedure Code merely by reason of being involved in a matter in that capacity. The availability of statutory protections under Section 195 and 340 Criminal Procedure Code depends on the specific offense charged, and these protections do not extend to offenses not enumerated in Section 195.

   On this section: Bars certain judges and magistrates from trying offenses committed before themselves; court held this does not apply as the same magistrate did not conduct trial

   Read the full order on eCourts India

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.