Hierarchy Of Criminal Courts In India
1. Structure of Criminal Courts in India
The Indian criminal judicial system is organized in a hierarchical structure designed to ensure efficient and orderly administration of justice.
The hierarchy typically is:
| Level | Courts | Jurisdiction and Powers |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court of India | Apex court | Final appellate jurisdiction, constitutional matters, and criminal cases of national importance. |
| High Courts | Principal civil and criminal courts in states | Superintendence over all courts in the state; appellate jurisdiction over Sessions Courts. |
| District and Sessions Courts | District Judge and Sessions Judge | Trial of serious criminal offenses (Sessions Court); also appellate court for lower courts. |
| Magistrate Courts | Judicial Magistrates (First Class and Second Class) | Trial of less serious offenses, preliminary inquiries, and certain civil matters. |
| Special Courts/Tribunals | Fast track courts, CBI courts, NDPS courts | Handle special types of cases under particular laws. |
Key Points:
Sessions Courts: Try serious offenses punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for 7+ years.
Magistrate Courts: Try minor offenses with lesser punishments.
High Court: Supervisory role and appellate jurisdiction.
Supreme Court: Final court of appeal and constitutional authority.
2. Important Case Laws on Hierarchy and Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts
Case 1: K.K. Verma v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 877
Facts:
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of a Sessions Court over a case that involved complex questions of law, arguing that the High Court should be the first forum.
Held:
The Supreme Court clarified that the Sessions Court is the trial court for serious offenses and that the High Court acts primarily as an appellate authority. The hierarchical order must be respected to maintain judicial discipline and procedure.
Significance:
Established that trial courts and appellate courts have distinct roles, and one cannot bypass the trial court by approaching a High Court directly in criminal trials.
Case 2: State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, AIR 2006 SC 144
Facts:
The accused appealed against the Sessions Court judgment in the High Court.
Held:
The Supreme Court reiterated the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court over Sessions Court judgments in criminal matters and emphasized that Sessions Courts function as trial courts, while High Courts supervise and correct errors through appeals or revisions.
Significance:
The case reaffirmed the proper flow of criminal cases in the judicial hierarchy, i.e., from Magistrate to Sessions to High Court and finally Supreme Court.
Case 3: Suresh Chand v. State of Haryana, AIR 1984 SC 1660
Facts:
The accused challenged the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Court to try a case involving a serious offense.
Held:
The Supreme Court explained that Magistrate Courts have limited jurisdiction and cannot try cases that are exclusively triable by Sessions Courts (serious offenses). The magistrate must commit the case to Sessions Court under Section 209 CrPC if the offense is beyond their jurisdiction.
Significance:
This case clarifies the territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction of Magistrate Courts and the procedural requirement to send serious offenses to higher courts.
Case 4: B. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, AIR 1976 SC 737
Facts:
The appellant was tried by a Sessions Court which allegedly did not have jurisdiction over the place where the offense was committed.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Court's territorial jurisdiction must align with the place where the offense was committed. If the court lacks jurisdiction, the trial is void.
Significance:
This case highlights the importance of territorial jurisdiction in criminal trials and the limits of courts at various levels.
Case 5: Mohd. Ishfaq v. Union of India, AIR 2019 SC 3639
Facts:
The accused sought to quash proceedings initiated by a magistrate court alleging lack of jurisdiction.
Held:
The Supreme Court confirmed that the magistrate courts are courts of first instance for cognizable offenses except for serious offenses which must be sent to Sessions Courts. Magistrates can conduct preliminary inquiries but cannot try offenses punishable with death or life imprisonment.
Significance:
Reaffirmed the division of work between Magistrates and Sessions Courts in India.
3. Summary of Jurisdiction and Functions
| Court Level | Jurisdiction / Function | Punishment Powers |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | Final appellate jurisdiction, constitutional issues | Can confirm death penalty, hear appeals |
| High Court | Appeals/revisions over Sessions Court decisions, writ jurisdiction | Confirm or modify Sessions Court orders |
| Sessions Court | Trial of serious criminal cases (e.g., murder, rape, robbery) | Imprisonment beyond 7 years, life imprisonment, death penalty |
| Judicial Magistrate First Class | Trial of offenses punishable up to 3 years or fine | Imprisonment up to 3 years |
| Judicial Magistrate Second Class | Trial of petty offenses, preliminary inquiries | Imprisonment up to 1 year or fine |
4. Conclusion
The criminal court hierarchy in India ensures that serious offenses are tried by higher courts, and lesser offenses by magistrates.
Magistrate courts conduct preliminary inquiries and try minor offenses.
Sessions courts are the primary trial courts for major criminal offenses.
High courts supervise lower courts and hear appeals.
The Supreme Court stands at the apex, deciding constitutional and major legal questions.
Each level has clearly demarcated jurisdiction, and courts cannot try cases outside their prescribed powers or territories, as established in the landmark judgments above.
RELATED Blog
0 comments