STATE OF BIHAR V KADRA PAHADIYA AND OTHERS

STATE OF BIHAR V KADRA PAHADIYA AND OTHERS

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• The present case is a Public Interest Litigation which is filed in form of Writ Petition before the Supreme Court by Kadra Pahadiya and others for introducing the mechanism of Special Judicial Magistrates and Special Metropolitan Magistrates as specified in Section 13 and 18 of Cr.P.C against State of Bihar and other states.

ISSUES RAISED:

• Whether there is a need to introduce the posts of Special Judicial Magistrate and Special Metropolitan Magistrate as mentioned in Section 13 and 18 of Cr.P.C?
• Whether Section 13(1) and Section 18(1) of Cr.P.C are constitutionally valid?
• What should be the appointment criteria, role and jurisdictional scope for Special Judicial Magistrate and Special Metropolitan Magistrate?

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANTS:

• The appellant counsel contended that the Magistrates all over the country are overburdened due to petty cases, which could be relieved by the appointment of Special Judicial Magistrate and Special Metropolitan Magistrate, so that petty cases could be dealt by them and regular courts could deal with more serious cases at a speedy pace, meeting the goal of speedy justice.
• The appellant argued that this large pendency of cases before the Magistrate is seen as a symbol for courts lack of concern towards speedy disposal of cases.
• The appellant contended that this mechanism of appointing required number of Special Judicial Magistrate and Special Metropolitan Magistrate in the code needs to be implemented to reduce the huge number of pendency cases, so that the burden on Judiciary or exchequer gets reduced, for disposing cases which fall under Section 260& 261 of Code along with cases which come under Section 320 of Code, which are compoundable by parties.
• The appellant also argued that State Governments and Central Government are not being justified for not implementing this provisions of Section 13&18 of Code, even after resolution for its invoking is being moved in conferences of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices in 1993 and also affirmed by the Law Minister on 17^th November, 1997 at Calcutta.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT:

• The respondent argued that the mechanism of appointing Special Judicial Magistrate and Special Metropolitan Magistrate, may help in disposing petty cases, but appointing them and paying them high salaries to them becomes heavy expenditure to the Government.
• The respondent argued that in order to reduce the pendency of cases we have already withdrawn many petty cases, which also reduces the burden of case, so there is no need to invoke these provisions.

JUDGMENT:

Regarding the first issue the court held that, there is little doubt that when the calendars of criminal courts (magistracy) in most states, with the exception of a few geographically small states, are clogged and trial of cases is delayed, there is no justification for not putting a piece of the machinery envisioned by the Code into motion. The main concept behind allowing for the appointment of Judicial Magistrates of Second Class is to keep minor cases out of the regular magisterial courts. The aim of the provision for the appointment of Special Judicial Magistrates/Special Metropolitan Magistrates under Sections 13(1) and 18(1), respectively, is to relieve ordinary courts of the load of trying cases that such Magistrates could handle.

Regarding second issue of Constitutional validity of Section 13(1) and Section 18(1), the court referred the case of M. Narayanaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, where it was held that Sections 13(1) and 18(1) to be not constitutional as they restricted the appointments to the posts of Special Judicial Magistrate and Special Metropolitan Magistrate to the persons holding or having any Government post. In this case the High Court held that Article 14 of the Constitution was violated since the classification was arbitrary and not based on intelligible differentia. The High Court believed that the judicial temperament and disposition to render swift justice in criminal matters could not be limited to individuals who hold or had held government positions. Furthermore, the High Court stated that a Government employee who had no interaction with judicial work during his tenure with the government would be inexperienced and ineligible to serve as a Special Judicial Magistrate or a Special Metropolitan Magistrate. As a result, according to the High Court, holding any office under the Government bears no rational relationship to the goal of the legislation.

Regarding the third issue, the court decided that When the High Court receives a request from the Central/State Government, it is the High Court alone that must decide on the number of appointments to be made, the personnel to be entrusted with such responsibility, and the scope of power to be conferred on such persons. The High Court must identify the qualifications and/or experience required for such Magistrates to carry out their duties. As previously stated, the period for which such appointments may be made may not exceed one year at a time, indicating that these are not appointments by way of regular entry into service, but rather short-term appointments intended to lessen the burden of pendency in ordinary Courts.

In the Court’s view, Appointees should regard the appointment as a social obligation rather than a job; in fact, it should be viewed as a social service to society. That is the spirit of Sections 13 and 18, and every appointee must accept the call in that spirit, without expecting to be paid as if they were in the service of the concerned State/Union Territory. That is why the two provisions call for those who have retired or are about to retire from government service to be appointed to help clear the backlog. From this vantage point, it appears fairly clear to us that retired Judicial Officers, officers of the Registry of District Courts and High Courts, and other Government servants with the specified experience and qualification can be requested to accept appointments as part of social service, and they may be paid a fee to cover out-of-pocket expenses and honoraria.

The court while deciding upon the jurisdictional scope of the Special Judicial Magistrate held that as per Section 13(1) and 13(3) of the Code, the High Court may delegate to a Special Judicial Magistrate the powers of a Metropolitan Magistrate  in any local area or over any metropolitan area outside his local jurisdiction, conferring him with the powers of Judicial Magistrate of first class or second class and also with respect to Special Metropolitan Magistrate as per Section 18(1) and 18(3) of the Code, the High Court may delegate to a special Metropolitan Magistrate in any metropolitan areas or in any local areas outside the metropolitan area, conferring him the powers of Judicial Magistrate of the first class. The court also said that these Special Magistrates could deal with offences specified in Section 320 Subsections 1,2,3 which deal with crimes which can be compounded by the concerned parties without the permission of the Court, offences which may be compounded with the permission of the Court before which the prosecution is pending, abetment or attempt to commit compoundable offence respectively.

The Court referred Section 206 of the Code which provides special procedure to deal with petty offences, which says that the Magistrate may issue summons to the accused, requiring him to appear in person or through his lawyer, or if he desires to plead guilty, to transmit by post or messenger, his plea of guilt along with the fine specified in the summons and also Chapter XX1 comprising Section 260 to 265 dealing with Summary trials procedure to be followed by these Special Magistrates.

The court strongly condemned the respondent’s arguments of withdrawing petty cases in order to reduce the burden of cases in regular courts by saying that such an action will not fulfil any purpose, instead sends wrong signal to the offenders that they can commit such offences as they won’t be punished as the cases would end up by withdrawing.

CONCLUSION:

In order to explain the importance of these provisions we need to know about the legislative history for introducing Sections 13 and 18. Prior to the Code’s adoption, there was a system of Honorary Magistrates in addition to regular stipendiary Magistrates. These Honorary Magistrates came from a variety of backgrounds. It was assumed that because of their education, experience, and contact with people, they would be able to deal with and efficiently resolve situations involving minor infractions. This introduced the concept of citizen engagement in the administration of criminal justice. The institution of Honorary Magistrates was thus functional in nature and was regarded as a beneficial and important supplement to the regular courts, particularly in metropolitan centres. The Law Commission recommended the introduction of Special Judicial Magistrates and Special Metropolitan Magistrates in Sections 13 and 19 of the drafted Criminal Procedure Code in response to criticism of system exploitation and abuse.

This case of Kadra Pahadiya and Ors. V State of Bihar and Ors. is of great significance firstly as it made the Apex Court to realise the importance of invoking these Sections 13 and 18 of the Code, requiring appointment of Special Judicial and Special Metropolitan Magistrates in order to deal with petty offences, so that the regular courts could deal with more important and serious case which affect the progress and development of nation as well as aid in welfare of the people in the country and secondly if these petty cases are dealt at speedy pace by these Special Magistrates, the accused need not spend years in prison without being tried in courts for years as in case of regular courts . Further it also made the Supreme Court to look after the implementation of these Special Magistrates in different states and also recommended the states to implement them as soon as possible.

written by Ayyapa Reddy Gari Bhavana  intern under legal vidhiya

Admin