Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Yashwant Kumar Nag vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 April, 2026
ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.14 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 7220/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-03-2026
in CRLR No. 405/2026 passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh at
Bilaspur]
YASHWANT KUMAR NAG & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION
IA No. 122120/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 28-04-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohammad Afroz Athar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. Sugandha Jain, Adv.
Mr. Prabodh Kumar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Mohammad Afroz Athar for the
petitioners and learned counsel, Ms. Sugandha Jain
learned standing counsel for the respondent-State of
Chhattisgarh.
2. The petitioners were charge-sheeted, inter alia, for
offence punishable under Section 409 Indian Penal Code
(for short “IPC”). After taking cognizance, the learned
Magistrate committed the matter to the Court of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.29
Session. The Sessions Court, by its order dated
14:19:16 IST
Reason:
26.02.2026 remitted the matter back to the Court of
1
Magistrate after noticing that the offences were all
triable by a Court of Magistrate as per the Schedule
attached to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short “Cr.P.C.”).
3. The aforesaid order was challenged by the accused by
way of a revision before the High Court. It was urged
before the High Court that since an offence punishable
under Section 409 IPC could result in a punishment of
life sentence, which is not imposable by a Court of
Magistrate in view of Section 29 of Cr.P.C., the order
of committal was not bad in law and therefore, the
Sessions Court should not have remitted the matter back
to the Court of Magistrate. The High Court however did
not accept the aforesaid submissions and by relying
upon the Schedule appended to the Code found no error
in the order passed by the Court of Session.
4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners
is that in Amandeep Singh Saran vs. State of
Chhattisgarh [(2024) 6 SCC 541], this Court observed
that Section 26 and the first schedule of Cr.P.C. are
controlled by other provisions of Cr.P.C. and
therefore, if the Magistrate in exercise of his power
under Section 323 Cr.P.C. commits the trial to the
Court of Session, the committal order cannot be
faulted.
5. We have accorded due consideration to the submissions
made.
2
6. The power under Section 323 of Cr.P.C. is exercisable
where there is any inquiry into an offence or trial
pending before a Magistrate. The provision reads thus:
“If, in any inquiry into an offence or trial before a
Magistrate, it appears to him at any stage of the
proceedings before signing judgment that the case is
one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session,
he shall commit it to that Court under the provisions
hereinbefore contained and thereupon the provisions
of Chapter XVIII shall apply to the commitment so
made.”
7. In the instant case, admittedly, charges have not yet
been framed therefore, the order of committal was
passed without there being a trial pending. In such
circumstances, considering that under the Schedule the
matter is triable by a Court of Magistrate, if the
Sessions Court remitted the matter to the Magistrate
Court, we do not find any fault in the said order.
8. Accordingly, we find no merit in the petition.
9. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, we make it clear that at a subsequent stage,
during trial, it shall be open for the Court of
Magistrate to exercise its power under Section 323
Cr.P.C., if required.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (SAPNA BANSAL)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
3
