Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191

Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191 

Case Name-  Budhan Choudhry And Other vs The State Of Bihar

CITATION- AIR 1955 SC 191

DECIDED ON- 2nd Dec.1954

BENCH- Mahajan, Mehar Chand (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Bose, Vivian, Bhagwati, N.H. & Jagannadhadas, B. & Aiyyar, T.L.Venkatarama

 FACTS IN BRIEF

The present case involved a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.). It provided that in certain states where there were Deputy Commissioners or Assistant Commissioners, the State Government may, invest the District Magistrate or any Magistrate of the first class, with power to try as a Magistrate all offences not punishable with death. Under Section 34, he can try a case and sentence the convict, except a sentence of death or of transportation for a term exceeding seven years or imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years. As regards the appellant, a criminal case was against him and was referred to the Deputy Commissioner by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The Commissioner, in turn transferred the file to a Magistrate with powers under the said Section 30 of Cr.P.C. wherein a sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment was imposed upon him under Section 366 of Indian Penal Code. Thereupon the Appellant challenged the said section which was upheld by the High Court. Thus the matter reached the Supreme Court for final determination wherein the issue was whether Section 30 of Cr.P.C. was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution which guaranteed right to equality before law and equal protection of law to all.

 ARGUMENTS

It was argued before the Court that (a) a Magistrate under Section 30 is enjoined by to try the case before him as a Magistrate and accordingly he shall follow the warrant procedure which is different from the procedure followed by a Court of Session. In a Court of Session the accused was entitled to the benefit of commitment proceedings before a Magistrate and then a trial before the Sessions Judge with the aid of the jury or assessors. But this was denied under Section 30 and thus it was violative of Article 14 as there was an infraction of the fundamental right of equality in such cases, and (b) the provision was liable to be abused as it discriminated between persons accused of offences of the same kind, as the police had the discretion of sending a person accused of an offence under a particular Section to a Section 30 Magistrate or to send another person accused of the same offence under the same section to a Magistrate who could commit the accused to the Court of Session. 

 JUDGEMENT

The Apex Court held that Section 30 of the Cr. P.C. did not violate the right to equality guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India as, 

• Article 14 did not prohibit a reasonable classification. The only requirement is that the differentia on the basis of which the classification was made must be intelligible and should have a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Statute. The Court also held that a classification could be based on geographical or territorial considerations.
• The risk of being tried by a Section 30 Magistrate fell alike upon all persons committing such an offence. Therefore, there is no discrimination in the Section itself.
• The discretion to try the offence under Section 30 or otherwise rested with the Magistrate and not with the police as it was upon the Magistrate to commit the accused to the Court of Session, instead of disposing of the case himself if he thought that the ends of justice will be met.
• In case of any intentional or purposeful discrimination against the appellants by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the District Magistrate or the Section 30 Magistrate, the law provided for revision by superior Courts of orders passed by the Subordinate Courts. 

 FOR COMMON MAN

The importance of this judgment lies in the fact that it establishes that even Judiciary comes within the definition of ‘State’, as under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, for the purposes of enforcing Fundamental Rights and in case of any infringement on them by the judiciary, the superior courts are entitled to scrutinize such actions.