SAG Legal

SAG Legal

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023

Section 12 – BNSS | Local Jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates.

Section 12 : Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 12 – BNSS | Local Jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates. (1) Subject to the control of the High Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, from time to time, define the local limits of the areas within which the Magistrates appointed under section 9 or under section 11 may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may respectively be invested under this Sanhita: Provided that the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate may hold its sitting at any place within the local area for which it is established. (2) Except as otherwise provided by such definition, the jurisdiction and powers of every such Magistrate shall extend throughout the district. (3) Where the local jurisdiction of a Magistrate appointed under section 9 or section 11 extends to an area beyond the district in which he ordinarily holds Court, any reference in this Sanhita to the Court of Session or Chief Judicial Magistrate shall, in relation to such Magistrate, throughout the area within his local jurisdiction, be construed, unless the context otherwise requires, as a reference to the Court of Session or Chief Judicial Magistrate, as the case may be, exercising jurisdiction in relation to the said district.

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023

Section 11 – BNSS | Special Judicial Magistrates

Section 11 : Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 11 – BNSS | Special Judicial Magistrates (1) The High Court may, if requested by the Central or State Government so to do, confer upon any person who holds or has held any post under the Government, all or any of the powers conferred or conferrable by or under this Sanhita on a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or of the second class, in respect to particular cases or to particular classes of cases, in any local area: Provided that no such power shall be conferred on a person unless he possesses such qualification or experience in relation to legal affairs as the High Court may, by rules, specify. (2) Such Magistrates shall be called Special Judicial Magistrates and shall be appointed for such term, not exceeding one year at a time, as the High Court may, by general or special order, direct

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023

Section 10 – BNSS | Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, etc.

Section 10 : Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 10 – BNSS | Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, etc. (1) In every district, the High Court shall appoint a Judicial Magistrate of the first class to be the Chief Judicial Magistrate.  (2) The High Court may appoint any Judicial Magistrate of the first class to be an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, and such Magistrate shall have all or any of the powers of a Chief Judicial Magistrate under this Sanhita or under any other law for the time being in force as the High Court may direct.  (3) The High Court may designate any Judicial Magistrate of the first class in any sub-division as the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate and relieve him of the responsibilities specified in this section as occasion requires.  (4) Subject to the general control of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, every Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate shall also have and exercise, such powers of supervision and control over the work of the Judicial Magistrates (other than Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates) in the sub-division as the High Court may, by general or special order, specify in this behalf.

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023

Section 9 – BNSS | Courts of Judicial Magistrates.

Section – 9 : Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 9 – BNSS | Courts of Judicial Magistrates. (1) In every district there shall be established as many Courts of Judicial Magistrates of the first class and of the second class, and at such places, as the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, by notification, specify: Provided that the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, establish, for any local area, one or more Special Courts of Judicial Magistrates of the first class or of the second class to try any particular case or particular class of cases, and where any such Special Court is established, no other Court of Magistrate in the local area shall have jurisdiction to try any case or class of cases for the trial of which such Special Court of Judicial Magistrate has been established. (2) The presiding officers of such Courts shall be appointed by the High Court. (3) The High Court may, whenever it appears to it to be expedient or necessary, confer the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or of the second class on any member of the Judicial Service of the State, functioning as a Judge in a Civil Court.

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023

Section 8 – BNSS | Court of Session

Section – 8 : Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 8 – BNSS | Court of Session (1) The State Government shall establish a Court of Session for every sessions division. (2) Every Court of Session shall be presided over by a Judge, to be appointed by the High Court.  (3) The High Court may also appoint Additional Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session (4) The Sessions Judge of one sessions division may be appointed by the High Court to be also an Additional Sessions Judge of another division, and in such case, he may sit for the disposal of cases at such place or places in the other division as the High Court may direct.  (5) Where the office of the Sessions Judge is vacant, the High Court may make arrangements for the disposal of any urgent application which is, or may be, made or pending before such Court of Session by an Additional Sessions Judge or if there be no Additional Sessions Judge, by a Chief Judicial Magistrate, in the sessions division; and every such Judge or Magistrate shall have jurisdiction to deal with any such application.  (6) The Court of Session shall ordinarily hold its sitting at such place or places as the High Court may, by notification, specify; but, if, in any particular case, the Court of Session is of opinion that it will tend to the general convenience of the parties and witnesses to hold its sittings at any other place in the sessions division, it may, with the consent of the prosecution and the accused, sit at that place for the disposal of the case or the examination of any witness or witnesses therein.  (7) The Sessions Judge may, from time to time, make orders consistent with this Sanhita, as to the distribution of business among such Additional Sessions Judges.  (8) The Sessions Judge may also make provision for the disposal of any urgent application, in the event of his absence or inability to act, by an Additional Sessions Judge or if there be no Additional Sessions Judge, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and such Judge or Magistrate shall be deemed to have jurisdiction to deal with any such application.  Explanation.—For the purposes of this Sanhita, “appointment” does not include the first appointment, posting or promotion of a person by the Government to any Service, or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State, where under any law, such appointment, posting or promotion is required to be made by the Government.

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023

Section 7 – BNSS | Territorial divisions.

Section – 7 : Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 7 – BNSS | Territorial divisions. (1) Every State shall be a sessions division or shall consist of sessions divisions; and every sessions divisions shall, for the purposes of this Sanhita, be a district or consist of districts. (2) The State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, alter the limits or the number of such divisions and districts. (3) The State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, divide any district into sub-divisions and may alter the limits or the number of such sub-divisions. (4) The sessions divisions, districts and sub-divisions existing in a State at the commencement of this Sanhita, shall be deemed to have been formed under this section.

Verbs may and shall in a statute is not a sure index Supreme Court
Criminal Law

Verbs ‘may’ and ‘shall’ in a statute is not a sure index: Supreme Court 

Verbs ‘may’ and ‘shall’ in a statute is not a sure index: Supreme Court New Delhi, December 19, 2024 – In a landmark decision today, the Supreme Court of India overturned a High Court order dismissing a criminal appeal filed by Muskan Enterprises and its proprietor against the State of Punjab. The case centers around a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for dishonoring a cheque amounting to Rs. 74 lakhs. The appellants, Muskan Enterprises and its proprietor, were initially convicted by the Judicial Magistrate in Amloh, Fatehgarh Sahib, leading to a two-year rigorous imprisonment sentence for the proprietor and an order to pay double the cheque amount as compensation. Upon appealing, the Sessions Court of Fatehgarh Sahib suspended the sentence and granted bail to the proprietor. However, the Sessions Court also imposed a condition requiring the appellants to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within sixty days, a measure intended to ensure compliance and prevent abuse of the legal process. Disagreeing with this condition, the appellants challenged it before the Punjab and Haryana High Court through a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC). The High Court dismissed the petition, citing the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Surinder Singh Deswal vs Virender Gandhi, which mandated such deposits under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Unwilling to accept this outcome, Muskan Enterprises filed a subsequent petition under the same section, seeking to revisit the deposit condition in light of a more recent Supreme Court decision. In the ensuing appeal, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in dismissing the subsequent petition. Justice Dipankar Datta, delivering the judgment, emphasized that the procedural frameworks governing criminal and civil cases are distinct, and principles like res judicata do not apply to criminal proceedings. The Court highlighted the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jamboo Bhandari vs Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., which granted appellate courts discretion to waive the mandatory 20% deposit in exceptional cases where such a requirement would be unjust or impede the appellant’s right to appeal. Justice Datta criticized the High Court’s rigid adherence to the earlier Surinder Singh Deswal ruling, arguing that the newer interpretation in Jamboo Bhandari should prevail. He underscored that legislative intent, as reflected in the mixed usage of “may” and “shall” in Section 148, indicates a balance between mandatory and discretionary powers. This nuanced interpretation allows appellate courts to exercise discretion based on the specifics of each case, ensuring that legal procedures do not become oppressive or obstructive to justice. The Supreme Court’s decision mandates the Sessions Court to re-evaluate the necessity of the 20% deposit condition in Muskan Enterprises’ case, considering the principles laid down in Jamboo Bhandari. Justice Datta refrained from prescribing a specific outcome, leaving the discretion to the lower court to determine whether the deposit remains appropriate based on the merits of the case. Legal experts view this judgment as a significant affirmation of judicial discretion and flexibility in criminal appeals. It underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring that procedural safeguards do not hinder the fundamental right to a fair appeal. By overturning the High Court’s dismissal, the Supreme Court has reinforced the importance of context and equitable considerations in the application of legal provisions. The State of Punjab, represented by Senior Advocate Prashant Kumar Mishra, expressed disappointment with the High Court’s earlier decision but welcomed the Supreme Court’s directive to re-examine the deposit condition. The appellants, Muskan Enterprises, hailed the judgment as a victory for justice and procedural fairness. As the case is remitted back to the Sessions Court, stakeholders anticipate a more balanced approach to enforcing financial conditions in criminal appeals, potentially setting a precedent for future cases involving commercial disputes and cheque dishonor offenses. Order PDF Download

SAG Legal

SAG Legal

Contact Details:

📞 Call us: 7300095838
📧 Email us: help@saglegal.in

Locate us on Google Maps Here

Scroll to Top