Supreme Court of India

Sunil Mehta v State of Gujarat

AIRONLINE 2013 SC 38120132 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
A company filed a complaint alleging offences under S.406 and S.420 IPC. After a police enquiry and an inquiry under S.202 CrPC, the Magistrate issued process for an offence under S.406 read with S.114 IPC. At the stage of S.244 CrPC (warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report), the Magistrate framed a charge relying on the depositions recorded before cognizance. The Sessions Judge in revision set this aside, but the High Court restored it.
Issue
Whether depositions of the complainant and his witnesses recorded under Chapter XV CrPC before cognizance are evidence on which the Magistrate can frame a charge under Part B of Chapter XIX CrPC.
Held
They are not. Under S.244 CrPC the Magistrate must hear the prosecution and take its evidence after the accused appears, and the accused has a valuable right to cross-examine those witnesses before a charge is framed, since that is how he can show the allegations are groundless. The High Court erred, and the order of the Sessions Judge was restored, with costs.
Principle
In a warrant case instituted on a complaint, a charge must rest on evidence taken under S.244 CrPC, with the accused's right to cross-examine, not on statements recorded before cognizance.
Cite this

Facts

  • A company filed a complaint alleging offences under S.406 and S.420 IPC. After a police enquiry and an inquiry under S.202 CrPC, the Magistrate issued process for an offence under S.406 read with S.114 IPC. At the stage of S.244 CrPC (warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report), the Magistrate framed a charge relying on the depositions recorded before cognizance. The Sessions Judge in revision set this aside, but the High Court restored it.

Issue

  1. Whether depositions of the complainant and his witnesses recorded under Chapter XV CrPC before cognizance are evidence on which the Magistrate can frame a charge under Part B of Chapter XIX CrPC.

Held

  • They are not. Under S.244 CrPC the Magistrate must hear the prosecution and take its evidence after the accused appears, and the accused has a valuable right to cross-examine those witnesses before a charge is framed, since that is how he can show the allegations are groundless. The High Court erred, and the order of the Sessions Judge was restored, with costs.

Ratio decidendi

Statements recorded under Chapter XV CrPC are for deciding whether to issue process, not evidence in the trial. Before framing a charge in a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the Magistrate must take evidence under S.244, and the accused must be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Warrant trials on complaint: Cite for S.267 to S.269 BNSS (S.244 to S.246 CrPC): evidence and cross-examination before charge.
  • Contrast with sessions trials: In a sessions trial, discharge and charge (S.250, S.251 BNSS) are decided on the record and documents, without evidence.
  • Correction (2026-10-21): An earlier version of this file described a sessions murder trial vitiated by lack of cross-examination, with a different bench and the citation (2013) 12 SCC 220. The Indian Kanoon text shows a complaint case under S.406 IPC decided by T.S. Thakur and S.J. Mukhopadhaya JJ.; the SCC citation could not be confirmed and is omitted.

Cite this

Citation

Sunil Mehta v State of Gujarat AIRONLINE 2013 SC 381

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194127915/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.