Chapter XXIV
Section 326 CrPC: Conviction or commitment on evidence partly recorded by one Magistrate and partly by another
New Law Update (2024)
Section 367 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Courts of Magistrate and Sessions Judge
Punishment
Procedural – Investigation / Inquiry
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) Whenever any Judge or Magistrate, after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in an inquiry or a trial, ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein and is succeeded by another Judge or Magistrate who has and who exercises such jurisdiction, the Judge or Magistrate so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by his predecessor, or partly recorded by his predecessor and partly recorded by himself; Provided that if the succeeding Judge or Magistrate is of opinion that further examination of any of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded is necessary in the interests of justice, he may re-summon any such witness, and after such further examination, cross-examination and re-examination, if any, as he may permit, the witness shall be discharged.
(2) When a case is transferred under the provisions of this Code from one Judge to another Judge or from one Magistrate to another Magistrate, the former shall be deemed to cease to exercise jurisdiction therein, and to be succeeded by the latter, within the meaning of Sub-Section (1).
(3) Nothing in this section applies to summary trials or to cases in which proceedings have been stayed under section 322 or in which proceedings have been submitted to a superior Magistrate under section 325.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Sub-section (1) and Proviso
This crucial part allows a new Judge or Magistrate, taking over an ongoing case, to rely on the evidence already recorded by their predecessor. However, it also provides a vital safeguard: the new judicial officer can recall and re-examine any witness if they believe it’s necessary for justice.
Sub-section (3)
This sub-section clearly defines the limitations of Section 326, stating that its provisions do not apply to summary trials or cases that have been stayed or referred to a superior Magistrate under other specific sections of the CrPC, ensuring clarity on its scope.
Landmark Judgements
Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab, (1984) 4 SCC 517:
The Supreme Court clarified that Section 326 CrPC is an enabling provision, allowing a succeeding Judge or Magistrate to act upon evidence partly recorded by their predecessor. The primary object is to avoid de novo trials and expedite justice, while the proviso safeguards the interest of justice by allowing re-summoning of witnesses if deemed necessary.
Baburao v. State of Maharashtra, (1989) Supp. 2 SCC 404:
The Supreme Court reiterated the discretionary power vested in the succeeding Judge or Magistrate under the proviso to Sub-section (1). It emphasized that this discretion must be exercised judiciously, and re-summoning witnesses is not mandatory in every case but only when the interests of justice genuinely necessitate it, such as when there’s a doubt about the previous recording or the need for clarification.