Chapter XXIV
Section 325 CrPC: Procedure when Magistrate can not pass sentence sufficiently severe
New Law Update (2024)
Section 344 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Magistrate, Chief Judicial Magistrate
Punishment
Procedural – Judgment / Sentencing
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) Whenever a Magistrate is of opinion, after hearing the evidence for the prosecution and the accused, that the accused is guilty, and that he ought to receive a punishment different in kind from, or more severe than, that which such Magistrate is empowered to inflict, or, being a Magistrate of the second class, is of opinion that the accused ought to be required to execute a bond under section 106, he may record the opinion and submit his proceedings, and forward the accused, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom he is subordinate.
(2) When more accused than one are being tried together, and the Magistrate considers it necessary to proceed under Sub-Section (1) in regard to any of such accused, he shall forward all the accused, who are in his opinion guilty, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
(3) The Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom the proceedings are submitted may, if he thinks fit, examine the parties and recall and examine any witness who has already given evidence in the case and may call for and take any further evidence, and shall pass such judgment, sentence or order in the case as he thinks fit, and as is according to law.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 325(1)
This sub-section empowers a Magistrate who believes an accused is guilty but requires a punishment beyond their jurisdiction, or a second-class Magistrate needing a bond under Section 106, to record their opinion and refer the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Section 325(3)
This part grants the Chief Judicial Magistrate significant powers upon receiving such a case, including examining parties, recalling witnesses, taking new evidence, and ultimately passing any judgment or sentence deemed fit and lawful, treating the matter as if it were before them originally.
Landmark Judgements
Kashi Ram v. State of M.P. (1987):
This ruling clarified that when a case is submitted under Section 325, the Chief Judicial Magistrate acts as a court of original jurisdiction, not merely an appellate or revisional court. This implies the CJM has wide powers to deal with the case, including potentially conducting a fresh inquiry or trial if deemed necessary.
Sujit Chakraborty v. The State of Tripura (2012):
The High Court reiterated the expansive powers of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 325(3), confirming that the CJM is entitled to examine parties, recall and re-examine witnesses, and take further evidence before passing an appropriate judgment, sentence, or order.