A Sessions Court may try supplementary co-accused despite omission of a Sessions-triable offence from the charge-sheet.

The applicant had lodged FIR C.R. No. I-4 of 2005 at Chaklasi Police Station for offences under Sections 120B, 153A, 153B, 294 and 295 of the IPC and Sections 5 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (“ITP Act”). A connected FIR, C.R. No. I-5 of 2005, was registered at the DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad, invoking Sections 120B, 153C, 292, 294, 295 and 420 of the IPC, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 5 of the ITP Act

A charge-sheet in the DCB case was filed and the matter was numbered as Criminal Case No. 52 of 2014 before the Metropolitan Magistrate and subsequently committed to the Sessions Court as Sessions Case (CCC) No. 116 of 2014. The present respondents, who had not been arrested earlier, were shown as absconding and were later prosecuted through a supplementary charge-sheet

The applicant challenged the Sessions Court’s order dated 22 August 2014, which rejected his objection to the Sessions Court’s jurisdiction.

1. Whether the Sessions Court had jurisdiction to try the respondents despite the supplementary charge-sheet not expressly invoking Section 9 of the ITP Act or specifying an offence exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

2. Whether the Magistrate’s committal of the supplementary case to the Sessions Court was invalid because the committal order did not specify the relevant Sessions-triable offence.

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to challenge the Sessions Court’s jurisdiction in the circumstances of the case.

The Court considered Section 22 of the ITP Act, which provides that offences under specified provisions of the Act, including Section 9, are triable by a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class.

It also considered Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, under which a Magistrate must commit a case to the Court of Session where the offence appears to be exclusively triable by that Court.

The Court relied principally on Essar Teleholdings Ltd. v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court, (2013) 8 SCC 1, for the principle that where an accused is added through a supplementary charge-sheet as a co-accused in an ongoing Sessions case, the Sessions Court may take cognizance of the offences connected with the principal case and try other offences arising from the same transaction.

The Court also noted the reliance placed on Subramanian Swamy v. Raju through Member, Juvenile Justice Board, (2013) 10 SCC 465, concerning the jurisdiction of the trial court in connected proceedings.

The Court acknowledged that Section 9 of the ITP Act was not expressly mentioned in the supplementary charge-sheet.

However, it found that the supplementary case was an offshoot of the principal FIR and related to co-accused who had been unavailable when the earlier charge-sheet was filed. The connected Sessions Cases had involved Section 9 of the ITP Act and were already being tried before the Sessions Court.

Applying the principle in Essar Teleholdings, the Court held that the Sessions Court’s jurisdiction was not defeated merely because Section 9 was omitted from the supplementary charge-sheet.

The respondents’ prosecution arose from the same criminal conspiracy and transaction, including the allegation under Section 120B IPC; therefore, permitting a separate Magistrate-level trial would unjustifiably fragment the connected prosecution.

The Court treated the omission of Section 9 as a matter of form rather than a jurisdictional defect in the circumstances of the supplementary proceedings.

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 13577 of 2014 was rejected; the interim relief, if any, was vacated and the Rule was discharged.

Since the same issue governed Special Criminal Application No. 6121 of 2017, no separate order was passed; that petition was also disposed of, with interim relief vacated and the Rule discharged.

The concerned Sessions Judge was directed to proceed in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made in the judgment.