IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SUGATO MAJUMDAR CRR/29/2026 SHRI M. K. SURESHAN PILLAI … PETITIONER VS. THE STATE … RESPONDENT For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobind For the respondent : Mr. Sumit Kr. Karmakar Heard on : July 08, 2026 and July 09, 2026 Judgment on : July 10 , 2026 SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J. 1. The instant criminal revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 2. The sum and substance of the case is that First Information Report No.83 of 2025 dated 03.07.2015 was drawn up against the petitioner under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Rangat. 3. The First Information Report was forwarded to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mayabunder, North and Middle Andaman. After investigation, chargesheet was filed being Charge Sheet No.148 of 2017 on 15.09.2017 under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Thereafter, in terms of the order No.28 date 03.10.2018, the learned Chief 2 Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mayabunder, framed charge against the petitioner to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Following this, summons were issued against the witnesses.

4. Charge Sheet Witness No.1 was examined as PW-1 and the defacto complainant was partly examined as PW-2. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mayabunder , in terms of order No.71 dated 29.07.2024 transferred the matter to the Court of Sessions Judge at Port Blair on the ground that the offence is exclusively triable by Specially Designated Court. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge at Port Blair transferred the case to the Additional Sessions Judge, North & Middle Andaman, Mayabunder for trial and disposal, in terms of the Order dated 21.11.2024. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant application has been filed praying for setting aside of the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge transferring the trial to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge. 6. The principal limb of argument of Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobind, the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that there is on Special Court in the Island to try and hear the cases against any government servant charged with offence under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge committed error as manifest from the order itself. In absence of any Special Court, the trial should be before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class in accordance with the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3

7. It was further submitted that once the offence is tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner would be prejudiced in view of the fact that he will lose one forum of appeal; in other words, according to him, if the matter was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, then, appeal could have been preferred before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Port Blair. This appellate forum has been lost by the impugned order. 8. Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobind referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in Amandeep Singh Saran vs. State of Chattisgarh reported in (2021) 6 SCC 541 and in another decision of the Supreme Court of India in Yashwant Kumar Nag and others vs. The State of Chattisgarh and others in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) NO.7220 of 2026 dated 28.04.2026 to substantiate his point. It was pointed out that in Yashwant Kumar Nag’s case, the Supreme Court of India uphold the order passed by the Sessions Judge remitting the proceeding back to the Magistrate’s Court. The same procedure should have been adopted by the learned Sessions Judge.

9. Learned Counsel appearing for the State, Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar, submitted the offence under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years and fine. Therefore, the Magistrate is not competent for the trial. It is further submitted by Mr. Karmakar that Yashwant Kumar Nag’s case was decided at the stage where charges were yet to be framed. In this case trial had been commenced. Therefore, the ratio is not applicable. Mr. Karmakar supported the order and submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference. 4 10. I have heard rival submissions. 11. The First Schedule of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 which contains classification of sentences shows that offence under section 409 is triable by the Magistrate First Class. First Schedule of Code is, of course, subject to the other provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 29(2) of the Cr.P.C empowers the Magistrate, First Class to pass sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or of fine not exceeding Rs.10,000/-. Consequently, the Magistrate cannot impose any sentence which he has no authority to pass. Section 409 of the I.P.C provides sentence of imprisonment upto life. Obviously, the Magistrate is not empowered to impose this punishment

12. If it appears to the Magistrate, that the offence is not triable and sentence cannot adequately be passed by him then, he would have to take recourse to the provision of 325 of the Code. Section 325 (1) of the Code provides whenever a Magistrate is of the 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, he may record the opinion and submit his proceedings, and forward the accused, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom he is subordinate. According to section 325(3), 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 5 and may call for and take any further evidence, and shall pass such judgment, sentence as he thinks fit, and in accordance with law. 13. Now what may happen, if a Magistrate thinks that some different punishment should be imposed then he is authorized to do so? He will have to send to the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may further examine the witness who have already been examined or conduct further trial. Evidently this would delay the whole procedure and trial.

14. Speedy disposal of the trial was considered seriously by the Supreme Court of India from time to time for which different guidelines has been set. Reference may be made to Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248], Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak [(1992) 1 SCC 225]. 15. Coming to the case in hand, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mayabunder transferred the case to the Sessions Judge for trial of the case by a Specially Constituted Court. The notification considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mayabunder is not in force in Andaman. 16. However, the learned Sessions Judge transferred the matter to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge for trial. In this context, the dictum of the Supreme Court of India in Amandeep Singh’s case is very relevant. In this case, the Supreme Court of India considered that an accused not only has right to fair trial but has got a fundamental right of speedy trial which is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In this case, the Supreme Court of India 6

considered the trial of the offence under section 409 of the IPC. Going by the First Schedule of Cr.P.C, an offence under section 409 of the IPC is triable by the Magistrate First Class. It is in this context, the phrase “subject to the other provisions of this Code” appearing in section 26 of the Cr.P.C and its impact on the First Schedule to Cr.P.C, things to be considered by the other provisions of this Code. 17. The Court also considered the situation, if ultimately for any reasons, it is found that the Trial was not before the competent jurisdiction , the accusd may again have to face fresh trial in view of the provisions contained in section 30091) of the Cr.P.C. After discussing various provisions of Cr.P.C, the Court opined as follows: “Thus, upon a diallage we find that in respect of a case where the offence to be tried is under section 409 IPC, as in the case on hand, it is only conducive to conduct the trial before a Court of session”. 18. Yashwant Kumar Nag’s case was decided in the context when charge was yet to be framed meaning thereby that the Magistrate had yet to decide whether the trial would be under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. In this case change had been crystallized and the trial was under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 19. The principle of law so set forth by the Supreme Court of India as mentioned above, leave no space to conclude that the offence should not be tried by the Additional Sessions Judge. 7

20. As discussed above, this Court does not interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The trial shall be conducted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Port Blair who shall endeavour to complete the same preferably within six months from the date of receiving this order. 21. Accordingly, CRR No. 29 of 2026 stands disposed of along with pending application, if any. 22. All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 23. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. ( SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J. )

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SUGATO MAJUMDAR CRR/29/2026 SHRI M. K. SURESHAN PILLAI … PETITIONER VS. THE STATE … RESPONDENT For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobind For the respondent : Mr. Sumit Kr. Karmakar Heard on : July 08, 2026 and July 09, 2026 Judgment on : July 10 , 2026 SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J. 1. The instant criminal revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 2. The sum and substance of the case is that First Information Report No.83 of 2025 dated 03.07.2015 was drawn up against the petitioner under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Rangat. 3. The First Information Report was forwarded to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mayabunder, North and Middle Andaman. After investigation, chargesheet was filed being Charge Sheet No.148 of 2017 on 15.09.2017 under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Thereafter, in terms of the order No.28 date 03.10.2018, the learned Chief 2 Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mayabunder, framed charge against the petitioner to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Following this, summons were issued against the witnesses.

4. Charge Sheet Witness No.1 was examined as PW-1 and the defacto complainant was partly examined as PW-2. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mayabunder , in terms of order No.71 dated 29.07.2024 transferred the matter to the Court of Sessions Judge at Port Blair on the ground that the offence is exclusively triable by Specially Designated Court. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge at Port Blair transferred the case to the Additional Sessions Judge, North & Middle Andaman, Mayabunder for trial and disposal, in terms of the Order dated 21.11.2024. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant application has been filed praying for setting aside of the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge transferring the trial to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge. 6. The principal limb of argument of Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobind, the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that there is on Special Court in the Island to try and hear the cases against any government servant charged with offence under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge committed error as manifest from the order itself. In absence of any Special Court, the trial should be before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class in accordance with the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3

7. It was further submitted that once the offence is tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner would be prejudiced in view of the fact that he will lose one forum of appeal; in other words, according to him, if the matter was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, then, appeal could have been preferred before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Port Blair. This appellate forum has been lost by the impugned order. 8. Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobind referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in Amandeep Singh Saran vs. State of Chattisgarh reported in (2021) 6 SCC 541 and in another decision of the Supreme Court of India in Yashwant Kumar Nag and others vs. The State of Chattisgarh and others in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) NO.7220 of 2026 dated 28.04.2026 to substantiate his point. It was pointed out that in Yashwant Kumar Nag’s case, the Supreme Court of India uphold the order passed by the Sessions Judge remitting the proceeding back to the Magistrate’s Court. The same procedure should have been adopted by the learned Sessions Judge.

9. Learned Counsel appearing for the State, Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar, submitted the offence under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years and fine. Therefore, the Magistrate is not competent for the trial. It is further submitted by Mr. Karmakar that Yashwant Kumar Nag’s case was decided at the stage where charges were yet to be framed. In this case trial had been commenced. Therefore, the ratio is not applicable. Mr. Karmakar supported the order and submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference. 4 10. I have heard rival submissions. 11. The First Schedule of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 which contains classification of sentences shows that offence under section 409 is triable by the Magistrate First Class. First Schedule of Code is, of course, subject to the other provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 29(2) of the Cr.P.C empowers the Magistrate, First Class to pass sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or of fine not exceeding Rs.10,000/-. Consequently, the Magistrate cannot impose any sentence which he has no authority to pass. Section 409 of the I.P.C provides sentence of imprisonment upto life. Obviously, the Magistrate is not empowered to impose this punishment

12. If it appears to the Magistrate, that the offence is not triable and sentence cannot adequately be passed by him then, he would have to take recourse to the provision of 325 of the Code. Section 325 (1) of the Code provides whenever a Magistrate is of the 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, he may record the opinion and submit his proceedings, and forward the accused, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom he is subordinate. According to section 325(3), 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 5 and may call for and take any further evidence, and shall pass such judgment, sentence as he thinks fit, and in accordance with law. 13. Now what may happen, if a Magistrate thinks that some different punishment should be imposed then he is authorized to do so? He will have to send to the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may further examine the witness who have already been examined or conduct further trial. Evidently this would delay the whole procedure and trial.

14. Speedy disposal of the trial was considered seriously by the Supreme Court of India from time to time for which different guidelines has been set. Reference may be made to Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248], Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak [(1992) 1 SCC 225]. 15. Coming to the case in hand, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mayabunder transferred the case to the Sessions Judge for trial of the case by a Specially Constituted Court. The notification considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mayabunder is not in force in Andaman. 16. However, the learned Sessions Judge transferred the matter to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge for trial. In this context, the dictum of the Supreme Court of India in Amandeep Singh’s case is very relevant. In this case, the Supreme Court of India considered that an accused not only has right to fair trial but has got a fundamental right of speedy trial which is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In this case, the Supreme Court of India 6

considered the trial of the offence under section 409 of the IPC. Going by the First Schedule of Cr.P.C, an offence under section 409 of the IPC is triable by the Magistrate First Class. It is in this context, the phrase “subject to the other provisions of this Code” appearing in section 26 of the Cr.P.C and its impact on the First Schedule to Cr.P.C, things to be considered by the other provisions of this Code. 17. The Court also considered the situation, if ultimately for any reasons, it is found that the Trial was not before the competent jurisdiction , the accusd may again have to face fresh trial in view of the provisions contained in section 30091) of the Cr.P.C. After discussing various provisions of Cr.P.C, the Court opined as follows: “Thus, upon a diallage we find that in respect of a case where the offence to be tried is under section 409 IPC, as in the case on hand, it is only conducive to conduct the trial before a Court of session”. 18. Yashwant Kumar Nag’s case was decided in the context when charge was yet to be framed meaning thereby that the Magistrate had yet to decide whether the trial would be under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. In this case change had been crystallized and the trial was under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 19. The principle of law so set forth by the Supreme Court of India as mentioned above, leave no space to conclude that the offence should not be tried by the Additional Sessions Judge. 7

20. As discussed above, this Court does not interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The trial shall be conducted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Port Blair who shall endeavour to complete the same preferably within six months from the date of receiving this order. 21. Accordingly, CRR No. 29 of 2026 stands disposed of along with pending application, if any. 22. All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 23. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. ( SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J. )