Bombay HC: Delayed Birth Registration Beyond One Year Can Only Be Ordered By Judicial Magistrate First Class, not executive magistrate

Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Rules of 1999 framed in exercise of powers conferred under section 30 of Act of 1969 cannot go beyond what is prescribed in the statute itself. {Para 47}

48. Therefore, the inclusion of Executive Magistrate in Rule 9 of Rules of 1999 needs to be struck down/read down to the extent that delayed registration of births and deaths can only be verified before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class of the concerned jurisdiction and Executive Magistrate shall not be allowed to exercise the jurisdiction in respect of delayed registration of births and deaths as per section 13(3) of Act of 1969. Accordingly, exercising the inherent and extraordinary powers so vested, we strike down the authority given to Executive Magistrate as per Rule 9 of Rules of 1999 and confines the jurisdiction to a Judicial Magistrate First class in State of Madhya Pradesh.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Writ Petition No. 408/2024

Decided On: 03.07.2026

Savio Jose Xavier Viegas Vs. Mariano Godinho and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Valmiki Sa Menezes, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/5173/2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances, the high court or Session court should not release the accused on bail only on the ground that offence is triable by JMFC?

 At this stage, we may note that one of the grounds that weighed with the High Court was that the offences against Respondent No. 1 were triable by a Magistrate. However, the High Court overlooked the fact that the offences now alleged against Respondent No. 1 include offences Under Section 409 Indian Penal Code and Section 467 Indian Penal Code also. Significantly, the punishment for offences under these provisions can extend to imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term up to ten years. Similarly, some of the other offences for which Respondent No. 1 has been hauled up for entail a possible sentence of imprisonment over three years. {Para 12}

13. Under Section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732, a Magistrate of First Class can pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, while a Chief Judicial Magistrate may pass a sentence of imprisonment, excepting imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years or a sentence of death or imprisonment for life. A Metropolitan Magistrate has the same powers as a Magistrate of First Class while a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is equivalent to a Chief Judicial Magistrate.

14. In that view of the matter, it would always be open to a Magistrate, if he is of the opinion that any of the offences in the case are exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, to commit the case to a Court of Sessions Under Section 209 Code of Criminal Procedure or Section 323 Code of Criminal Procedure. It may be noted that Under Section 323 Code of Criminal Procedure, such power can be exercised by the Magistrate even during the course of the trial. Therefore, the assumption of the High Court that the case on hand is triable by a Magistrate is premature.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 957 of 2026 

Decided On: 17.02.2026

Rakesh Mittal Vs. Ajay Pal Gupta and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Author: P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 161, MANU/SC/0164/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances, Magistrate Can Commit the case to Sessions court during Course Of Trial even if it is not exclusively triable by Session Court?

At this stage, we may note that one of the grounds that weighed with the High Court was that the offences against Respondent No. 1 were triable by a Magistrate. However, the High Court overlooked the fact that the offences now alleged against Respondent No. 1 include offences Under Section 409 Indian Penal Code and Section 467 Indian Penal Code also. Significantly, the punishment for offences under these provisions can extend to imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term up to ten years. Similarly, some of the other offences for which Respondent No. 1 has been hauled up for entail a possible sentence of imprisonment over three years. {Para 12}

13. Under Section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732, a Magistrate of First Class can pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, while a Chief Judicial Magistrate may pass a sentence of imprisonment, excepting imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years or a sentence of death or imprisonment for life. A Metropolitan Magistrate has the same powers as a Magistrate of First Class while a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is equivalent to a Chief Judicial Magistrate.

14. In that view of the matter, it would always be open to a Magistrate, if he is of the opinion that any of the offences in the case are exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, to commit the case to a Court of Sessions Under Section 209 Code of Criminal Procedure or Section 323 Code of Criminal Procedure. It may be noted that Under Section 323 Code of Criminal Procedure, such power can be exercised by the Magistrate even during the course of the trial. Therefore, the assumption of the High Court that the case on hand is triable by a Magistrate is premature.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 957 of 2026 

Decided On: 17.02.2026

Rakesh Mittal Vs. Ajay Pal Gupta and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Author: P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 161, MANU/SC/0164/2026

Print Page

Criminal Offences and Trials under The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: Role of JMFC and Session Judge

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 stands as a monumental piece of legislation that not only grants comprehensive rights to persons with disabilities but also creates a robust criminal justice framework to protect them from atrocities and discrimination. While much attention is given to the rights and entitlements under this Act, the penal provisions and trial procedures remain lesser explored territories that demand judicial scrutiny and understanding.

The Criminal Justice Architecture Under RPWD Act 2016

The RPWD Act 2016 represents a paradigm shift from the erstwhile Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Chapter XVI of the Act (Sections 89-95) creates a comprehensive penal framework that criminalizes various forms of discrimination, atrocities, and violations against persons with disabilities, transforming what were once civil wrongs into cognizable criminal offences.

Section 92: The Crown Jewel of Criminal Protection

Print Page

Whether the court can convict accused based on evidence of Judicial Magistrate who recorded statement of victim U/S 164 of CRPC if victim has turned hostile?

Even Supreme Court in case of Brij Nath Sah v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0344/2010 : 2010:INSC:255 : (2010) 6 SCC 736 has reiterated same principles. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a statement under Section 164 is not substantive evidence and can be utilized only to corroborate or contradict the witness vis-a-vis statement made in court. {Para 68}

 70. Trial Court was wrong in convicting the Appellant by taking recourse to statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the basis of the evidence of the learned Magistrate and the medical evidence, statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code can be treated as previous statement only. 

71. So if we look at the weightage and value of evidence of judicial officer from all the angles, we may find that his evidence cannot be said direct on the point of happening of the incident. Because he is not giving the evidence on the basis of facts seen by him. His evidence is on the point of what he has heard through the mouth of the victim.

72. So for what purpose this provision is included in the Code. The mechanism created by the Code is investigation carried out by the police including recording the statement of the witnesses. Recording statement through the Magistrate is also a part of investigation. Such statement stands on higher pedestal than the police statement. Still we can not attach more value than recognized by the law. Such statement falls within the category of 'previous statement' only. Its use is permissible in the mode prescribed in the Evidence Act only.

73. Does it mean to say that this statement can be the basis for conviction just because it is recorded by judicial official and oath is administered? Answer is 'No'. The reason is this statement is not recorded in the presence of the accused and there is no opportunity of the cross-examination to the maker of the statement when such statement is recorded by the Magistrate. So ultimately, when Magistrate gives evidence, his evidence is not the evidence about the witnessing the incident but it is evidence of facts stated before him by the victim.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 990 of 2019

Decided On: 09.05.2024

Deelip Tatoba Raje Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.M. Modak, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3173/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

'Feeble excuses'; Bombay HC directs administrative action against Judicial Magistrate for non-compliance with order for expeditious disposal of trial

 2.2) In the report, the learned JMFC has stated that the said casecame up before her for the first time on 30th January 2023 and at that time, the concerned clerk did not point out to her that the said case is made time bound by the High Court. One of the reason given by the learned Judicial Officer is that, she is dealing with huge pendency of 10 years plus cases both Criminal and Civil and therefore, she has to give attention to each and every matter on priority basis. That, there is insufficient staff to her court and it goes on frequent leave.

3) Perusal of the report clearly indicates that even though the present case was placed before the learned Judicial Officer for the first time on 30th January 2022, she did not adopt necessary steps for expeditious disposal of the said case by taking recourse of the provisions of Cr. P.C. for giving complete effect to the Order dated 24th February 2021 passed by this Court.

4) Numerous other excuses are also given in the said report for not completing the said trial within the stipulated period. Even if the complainant was not cooperating with the trial court, the trial court has powers to apply provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to take the said case to its logical end, as per the directions issued by this Court. The offence alleged against Applicant is under section 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.(page-4). As per the report itself, there are in all 9 witnesses.

5) Despite the said fact, learned Judicial Officer has now sought

an extension of 6 months to dispose of the said case.

6) We are unable to accept the feeble excuses given by the learned Judicial Officer in not complying with the directions issued vide Order dated 24th February 2021 and paying scant respect to it. It appears to us that the Judicial Officer concerned, is not serious in performing her judicial work. This requires attention by the learned Administrative Committee of this Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1685 OF 2024

IN

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 66 OF 2021

Chandragupt Rambadan Chauhan  Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND

DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

 DATE : 9 th  AUGUST, 2024.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Court Of Additional Sessions Judge Not Empowered To Try Offences Under IBC

Thus for all the above reasons, the impugned proceedings have been instituted by the Respondents (Complainant) in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, were not sustainable for want of jurisdiction. As a consequence order, 'issue process' passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the Petitioners, in a complaint by the Respondents/Board was without jurisdiction and therefore not sustainable equally. It is therefore to be held that Special Court "which is to try offences under the I.B. Code is the Special Court established under Section 435(2) (b) of the Companies Act, 2013 which consists of Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate First Class. The Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 2592 of 2021

Decided On: 14.02.2022

 Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu and Ors. Vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sandeep K. Shinde, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/0453/2022

Print Page

Whether an Additional Session Judge can try offences under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code2016?

  It may also be noted that Section 236 (3) of the I.B. Code creates a deeming fiction that the Special Court trying offences under I.B. Code shall be “Issue Process”, under Section deemed to be Court of

Sessions . If ”, under Section the intention of the legislature was that

offences under I.B. Code are to be tried by the Sessions Court, then this subsection would have been unnecessary. According to the Petitioners, this is an indication as to the true and proper interpretation of Section 435 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Section 436 of I.B. Code. Thus for all the above reasons, the impugned proceedings have been instituted by the Respondents (Complainant) in the Court of Addtional Sessions Judge, were not sustainable for want of jurisdiction. As a consequence order, ‘issue process’ passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the

Petitioners, in a complaint by the Respondents/Board was without jurisdiction and therefore not sustainable equally. It is therefore to be held that Special Court “Issue Process”, under Section which is to try offences under the I.B. Code is the Special Court established under Section 435 (2) (b) of the Companies Act, 2013 which consists of Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate

First Class. The Petition is therefore allowed in terms of

prayer clause (a). {Para 14}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 2592 OF 2021

 Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu Vs  Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India,

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE

PRONOUNCED ON : 14th FEBRUARY, 2022.

Print Page

Bombay high court; No quotas for persons with disabilities for posts of civil judges and JMFC in Maharashtra

MUMBAI: Reservations are not applicable for judicial posts in Maharashtra, the Bombay high court has ruled. In an important order, a division bench of Justice Ranjit More and Justice Rajesh Ketkar rejected a plea that sought implementation of three per cent reservation for persons with disabilities to the posts of civil judges and judicial first class magistrates. 

"The reservation in judiciary service by the state without consulting the high court or without concurrent recommendation of the HC is an encroachment on such exclusive powers," said the judges, while pointing to Supreme Court judgments that had said an "independent judiciary is a basic structure of the constitution and the high court alone can recognise vacancies and the reservation (to judicial posts) even if provided by the state." 

Print Page

Supreme Court: Magistrate has jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence committed outside his territorial jurisdiction

Section 193 imposes a restriction on the court of sessions to take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction. But any Magistrate of the First Class has the power to take cognizance of any offence, no matter that the offence was committed within his jurisdiction or not. The only restriction contained in Section 190 is that the power to take cognizance is subject to the provisions of this Chapter. There are 9 Sections in Chapter XIV most of which contain one or other restriction imposed on the power of a first class magistrate in taking cognizance of an offence. But none of them incorporates any curtailment on such powers in relation to territorial barrier. In the corresponding provision in the old Code of Criminal Procedure (1898) the commencing words were like these: Except as hereinafter provided. Those words are now replaced by Subject to the provisions of this chapter. Therefore, when there is nothing in Chapter XIV of the Code to impair the power of a judicial magistrate of first class taking cognizance of the offence on the strength of any territorial reason it is impermissible to deprive such a magistrate of the power to take cognizance of an offence of course, in certain special enactments special provisions are incorporated for restricting the power of taking cognizance of offences falling under such acts. But such provisions are protected by non-obstante clauses. Any way that is a different matter. The jurisdictional aspect becomes relevant only when the question of enquiry or trial arises. It is therefore a fallacious thinking that only a magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case has the power to take cognizance of the offence. If he is a Magistrate of the First Class his power to take cognizance of the offence is not impaired by territorial restrictions. After taking cognizance he may have to decide as to the court which has jurisdiction to enquire into or try the offence and that situation would reach only during the post cognizance stage and not earlier. Unfortunately, the High Court, without considering any of the aforesaid legal aspects rushed to the erroneous conclusion that the judicial magistrate of first class, Gandhidham has no power to take cognizance of the offences alleged merely because such offences could have been committed outside the territorial limits of the State of Gujarat. Even otherwise, without being apprised of the fuller conspectus a decision on the question of jurisdiction should not have been taken by the High Court at a grossly premature stage as this.

Supreme Court of India

Trisuns Chemical Industry vs Rajesh Agarwal And Others C on 17 September, 1999

Bench: K.T.Thomas, M.B.Shah

Citation:1999(3)ACR2161(SC),AIR1999SC3499, 1999(2)ALD(Cri)693, 

1999(2)ALT(Cri)405, 1999CriLJ4325.

Print Page

Whether JMFC can record statement of witness u/s 164 of crpc of case under MCOCA Act?

There is no special provision under MCOCA for recording of statement of a witness by Court/ Judge. No doubt there is provision for giving protection to witness and pass such orders for his protection, but not similar to S. 164 Cr. P. C. Hence, provisions of Cr. P. C. are available to MCOCA judge. JMFC has jurisdiction to record such statement as it is not prohibited or no contrary provision is made in MCOCA. This Act specifically bars only those provisions which are contrary to the special provisions of the said Act. 

Print Page

Leading Bombay High court judgment on arrest of Woman accused

Even if the contention of the Respondent-State is accepted that, there are more than 200 bailable/non-bailable warrants issued by the various Courts against the Petitioner, that would not entitle the Police Officers to take the law in

their own hands and in fragrant violation of the aforesaid provisions, arrest the person. The Respondents-Police Officers are bound by the provisions of the Code and they cannot be heard to say that, they could have arrested the Petitioner in breach of provisions of the Code in general and sub-section (4) of Section 46 of the Code in particular, since more than 200 bailable/non-bailable warrants are issued against the Petitioner. The Police Officers acting in their official capacity/duties cannot frustrate the legislative intent, which grants protection to woman by virtue of insertion of sub-section (4) to Section 46 of the Code, which in clear words prohibits the Police Officers to effect arrest except there are unavoidable circumstance. Even if unavoidable circumstance exist, only with a prior permission of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, a woman can be arrested after sunset and before sunrise. It is true that, in exceptional circumstances, in an appropriate case, the arrest of women after sunset and before sunrise may be necessary. However, unless the procedure laid down under sub-section (4) of Section 46 of the Code is followed, no woman can be arrested at the whims and wills of the Police Officers.

Bombay High Court

Mrs. Bharati S. Khandhar vs Shri. Maruti Govind Jadhav, Psi on 21 December, 2012

Bench: A.S. Oka, S. S. Shinde

Print Page