Sections 324 and 325 CrPC: Previous Conviction and Procedure When Magistrate Cannot Pass a Sufficiently Severe Sentence
Sections 324 and 325 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 formed part of the general provisions governing inquiries and trials. Section 324 dealt with the forum of trial in specified cases involving a person with an earlier serious conviction, while Section 325 prescribed the procedure where a Magistrate considered his or her sentencing power inadequate.
Section 324 CrPC - Trial of persons previously convicted of offences against coinage, stamp-law or property
Meaning and purpose: Section 324 applied where a person who had already been convicted of a sufficiently serious offence falling under Chapter XII or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was again accused of a sufficiently serious offence under either of those Chapters. It regulated whether the case should remain before the Magistrate or be sent to a higher criminal court.
Section 324(1)
Where a person had previously been convicted of an offence punishable under Chapter XII or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code with imprisonment for three years or more, and was again accused of an offence under either Chapter carrying imprisonment for three years or more, the Magistrate, upon being satisfied that there was ground for presuming commission of the offence, was required to send the accused for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or commit the case to the Court of Session. This was unnecessary where the Magistrate was competent to try the case and considered that an adequate sentence could be passed upon conviction.
Section 324(2)
Where the principal accused was sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or committed to the Court of Session under sub-section (1), a person jointly accused in the same inquiry or trial was ordinarily required to be sent or committed with that accused. The exception applied where the jointly accused person was discharged under Section 239 or Section 245 CrPC, as applicable.
Relevant expressions: Chapter XII of the IPC dealt with offences relating to coin and government stamps, while Chapter XVII dealt with offences against property. The expression "ground for presuming" indicated the pre-trial satisfaction required at the relevant stage; Section 324 did not itself amount to a finding of guilt.
Section 325 CrPC - Procedure when Magistrate cannot pass sentence sufficiently severe
Meaning and purpose: Section 325 addressed a different situation. The Magistrate had heard the prosecution and the accused and considered the accused guilty, but believed that the punishment required was different in kind from, or more severe than, the punishment the Magistrate was legally empowered to impose.
Section 325(1)
After hearing the evidence for the prosecution and the accused, if the Magistrate considered the accused guilty and believed that a different kind of punishment or a more severe punishment was required, the Magistrate could record that opinion, submit the proceedings and forward the accused to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom the Magistrate was subordinate. The provision also covered the specified situation of a Magistrate of the second class considering that a bond under Section 106 should be required.
Section 325(2)
Where several accused were tried together and the Magistrate considered it necessary to use Section 325(1) for any of them, all accused whom the Magistrate considered guilty were to be forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Section 325(3)
The Chief Judicial Magistrate could examine the parties, recall and examine a witness who had already given evidence, and call for further evidence. The Chief Judicial Magistrate was then required to pass a judgment, sentence or order considered appropriate and lawful.
Difference between Sections 324 and 325 CrPC
| Section 324 | Section 325 |
|---|---|
| Concerned specified repeat accusations following an earlier qualifying conviction. | Concerned inadequacy of the Magistrate's sentencing power after hearing the case. |
| Could require trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate or commitment to the Court of Session. | Required submission of proceedings and forwarding of the accused to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. |
| Operated on the statutory conditions concerning the earlier conviction, fresh accusation and the Magistrate's satisfaction. | Operated where the Magistrate considered the accused guilty but considered the available punishment insufficient or inappropriate in kind. |
This article is intended to explain the statutory scheme under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the commencement of the BNSS. The applicable procedural law in an individual case can depend on the date and stage of the proceeding and the relevant repeal and savings provisions.