Neeraj Gupta v Pardeep Kumar Bansal | Can Magistrate Record Evidence u/S 267 BNSS in Sessions Trial?

Neeraj Gupta v. Pardeep Kumar Bansal (2026 SC) 1. A complaint was filed before the Magistrate u/S.200 CrPC for the offence of murder u/S.302 IPC, which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. 2. The Magistrate recorded pre-summoning evidence u/S.200 CrPC and issued summons to 3 accused persons. Thereafter, complying with the requirements of S.208, the Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions u/S.209 CrPC. 3. The Court of Sessions framed charges against 1 accused and discharged the remaining 2. This order was challenged before the HC by a Revision application. The HC held that the Magistrate should have recorded the evidence u/S.244 CrPC first and then only the case should have been committed. Hence, matter was remanded back to the Magistrate to record the evidence first. 4. SC set aside the order of the HC and held that the Magistrate proceeded as per the correct law. 5. S.244 applies only when the case is triable by Magistrate* and not when the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. At the pre-committal stage, the power of the Magistrate was described to be a “narrow inspection hole”. section 244 CrPC = section 267 BNSS section 200 CrPC = section 223 BNSS section 208 CrPC = section 231 BNSS section 209 CrPC = section 232 BNSS