Committal

What is Committal?

The term committal generally refers to the act of formally sending an accused person to a higher court for trial after a preliminary inquiry or sufficient evidence has been found to establish a prima facie case. It represents a crucial stage in criminal proceedings, marking the transition from investigation or inquiry to trial. The purpose of a committal proceeding is to ensure that only cases with adequate evidence proceed to trial, thereby protecting individuals from unwarranted prosecutions.

In other words, the committal of an accused is a judicial act whereby a Magistrate, upon being satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed an offence triable by a Court of Session, commits the case to that court for trial.

The Blacks Law Dictionary defines committal as, “In practice. To send a person to prison by virtue of a lawful authority, for any crime or contempt, or to an asylum, workhouse, reformatory, or the like, by authority of a court or magistrate.

The OED defines “committal” as the official process of sending someone to prison or a psychiatric hospital. In the context of criminal procedure, it refers to the act of sending a person charged with a serious offence to a higher court for trial.

According to the Cambridge Dictionary “In legal terms, it pertains to the act of sending a person to a higher court for trial after a preliminary examination.”

Merriam-Webster defines “committal” as the act of sending someone to prison or to a psychiatric hospital. In criminal procedure, it refers to the process of sending a defendant to a higher court for trial after a preliminary hearing.

Official Definition

Committal as defined in Legislations

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) the word committal is used to denote the judicial act whereby a Magistrate transmits (or “commits”) a case to the Court of Session for trial when the offence is triable exclusively by that Court; the statute prescribes that the Magistrate shall, after complying with the provisions of sections 207/208, commit the case to the Sessions Court, remand the accused as may be necessary, and transmit the record and documents to that Court. In short, the legislative usage of committal in the CrPC refers to the formal forwarding of the case (and the record) from a Magistrate’s Court to a higher criminal court for trial.  

Committal for sentence (CrPC)

The CrPC also uses committal where a Magistrate, having convicted an accused, finds the sentence called for exceeds the punishment the Magistrate may lawfully pass, and therefore commits the matter to a Sessions Judge for determination of sentence. This procedure (often referenced under Section 325 and related provisions) treats committal as a transmission of proceedings for appropriate sentencing rather than for trial.

Committal in relation to custody / remand (CrPC)

Legislative usage of committal in the CrPC also appears in connection with custody/remand — for example, where an accused is remanded to judicial custody pending commitment or trial. The phrase thus sometimes denotes the act of sending (committing) an accused to lawful custody for purposes of investigation or trial under provisions such as Section 167 (procedure when investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours).  

Committal under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) retains the same statutory concept: committal describes the Magistrate’s act of committing a case to the Court of Session where the offence falls within the exclusive cognizance of that Court, including the procedural obligation to transmit records and furnish the accused with documents; the BNSS echoes the CrPC’s committal framework while adding provisions for electronic transmission and procedural modernization.

Procedural Aspects

Sec 213 - Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session

Section 213 establishes that, except where the Sanhita or another law provides otherwise, a Court of Session cannot take cognizance of an offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under the BNSS. In practice this preserves the magistrate→session court commitment gateway: the Court of Session’s original-jurisdiction trial power is triggered only after proper commitment.

Under this section, If the accused appears or is produced before a Magistrate, and the matter is one triable by a Court of Session, the Magistrate must commit the case (or make a specific order) before the Session Court can proceed as a court of original jurisdiction. Further,  the provision protects the preliminary-screening role of Magistrates (ensuring charge framing, committal formalities or record transmission occur).

Thus, in simple words “No Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate.”

Section 232 — Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it

Section 232 sets out the procedure where, on institution of a case (police report or otherwise) if the accused is before a Magistrate and the Magistrate finds the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Magistrate must commit the case to the Court of Session. It is the BNSS counterpart to the CrPC committal rule for session-triable offences.

Under this section, the case is instituted and the accused appears or is produced before the Magistrate.

The Magistrate examines whether the offence is exclusively triable by Sessions (i.e., statutory classification of offence-triability). If yes, the Magistrate commits the record and sends the accused to the Sessions Court for trial. The provision therefore operationalizes the statutory division of triable-forums and ensures cases requiring Sessions trial do not linger at magistrate level.

Thus, “When the accused appears before the Magistrate and it appears that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall commit the case.”

Section 362 — Procedure when after commencement of inquiry or trial, Magistrate finds case should be committed

Section 362 covers the scenario where a Magistrate has already begun inquiry or trial but, after commencement, comes to the view that the case ought to be tried by the Court of Session. It allows the Magistrate to stop further magistrate-level proceedings and commit the case to Sessions with the record. This prevents duplication and preserves fairness where the gravity of the matter becomes evident only in-course.

This section comes into play after evidence/inquiry has started. Here, the Magistrate records reasons for commitment, transmits the proceedings/record to Sessions Court, and the Sessions Court proceeds with trial on that record (subject to receipt of necessary documents). It also ensures a flexible transfer mechanism where the trial forum can be upgraded mid-proceedings if warranted.

Thus, “If, in any inquiry or trial, the Magistrate finds that the case should be committed to the Court of Session, he shall commit it.”

Section 21 - Offences triable by Court of Sessions

Section 21(a) directs that any offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 may be tried by: (i) the High Court; or (ii) the Court of Session; or (iii) any other Court which is shown in the First Schedule to BNSS as the court by which the offence is triable.

The First Schedule to BNSS classifies offences (under BNS and other laws) and indicates in its columns the court by which the offence is triable — this schedule is used in conjunction with Section 21 to determine if a particular offence falls to a Magistrate’s Court, the Court of Session, or other designated court.

Additionally, Section 21(b) deals with offences under laws other than the BNS — it says when the specific law mentions a court, then that court shall try the offence; when no court is mentioned, then the offence may be tried by the High Court or any other Court as indicated in the First Schedule.

In the context of the Court of Session, Section 21 therefore allows the Court of Session to try those offences where the First Schedule or the law itself prescribes that court. For instance, serious offences such as rape (under sections 64-68 of BNS) are indicated in the schedule as triable by the Court of Session, and further the statute contains a proviso that such sexual-offence cases should, as far as practicable, be tried by a court presided over by a woman.

In short, the BNSS delegates the determination of whether an offence is triable by the Court of Session to the First Schedule and Section 21, meaning that any offence indicated in Column 6 of the Schedule as “Court of Session” (or “High Court or Court of Session”) will fall for trial before the Sessions Court, subject to the committal rules (e.g., under Sections 232 and 362) and other jurisdictional provisions of the statute.  

Sec 364 - Procedure when Magistrate cannot pass sentence sufficiently severe.

Under Section 364 BNSS, if a Magistrate, after hearing the evidence for the prosecution and the accused, forms the opinion that the accused is guilty and that he ought to receive a punishment different in kind from or more severe than what the Magistrate is empowered to inflict, or if a Magistrate of the second class believes that the accused ought to execute a bond or bail bond under Section 125 BNSS, then the Magistrate must record his opinion and submit the proceedings, and forward the accused, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) to whom he is subordinate.

If more than one accused are being tried together, and the Magistrate considers it necessary to proceed under subsection (1) in regard to any of them, then he must forward all the accused, whom in his opinion are guilty, to the CJM.  Once the proceedings reach the CJM, the CJM may, in the exercise of his discretion, examine the parties, recall and examine any witness who has already given evidence, call for and take any further evidence as he sees fit, and thereafter pass such judgment, sentence or order in the case as he thinks appropriate and according to law.

In effect, Section 364 serves as a procedural safety-valve to ensure that when a Magistrate perceives that the case demands a punishment beyond his jurisdictional sentencing power (either in degree or in kind), the matter is transferred to a court competent to impose the requisite sentence — thereby safeguarding against inadequate sentencing and upholding the principle of proportional punishment.

Committal as defined in Case Laws

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balveer Singh and Anr. V State of Rajasthan, held that, “Even if the case is triable by the Court of Session, the function of the Magistrate is not to act merely as a post office and commit the case to the Court of Session, but he is also empowered to take cognizance, issue process and summon the accused and thereafter commit the case to the Court of Session”

Almohan Das & Ors v. State of West Bengal - In this case, The Court held that when committing under Section 209 CrPC, the Magistrate’s role is to determine whether there is some evidence on which a conviction may reasonably be based, and not to assess the full sufficiency for conviction.

Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar - In this case, the Court held that under Section 209 the Magistrate is not conducting the full inquiry/trial but simply committing the case to the session court upon satisfaction that offence is exclusively triable by it. It emphasised that the committing Magistrate’s function is narrow, and more elaborate enquiry belongs to the session court.

Hon’ble Odissa High Court in Narottam Prusty v. State of Odisha & Anr. reported in 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 123 held that Since no commitment procedure has been prescribed in the POCSO Act for the cases triable by the Special Court, the date of appearance before the Special Court or the date on which accused was brought before such court for the first time after cognizance of the offence is taken under Section 33(1) of the POCSO Act, 2012 such date shall be treated as the date of commitment for the purpose of Section 250(1) of the BNSS.

Difference between Mandatory Committal and Discretionary Committal

In the context of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), mandatory committal refers to the scenario under Section 232 whereby a Magistrate must commit a case to the Sessions Court when the offence is exclusively triable by that Court; the statute stipulates that once the Magistrate takes cognisance, the committal and forwarding of records must be completed within ninety days, subject to a one-time extension of up to 180 days for reasons to be recorded in writing.

In contrast, discretionary committal (under Section 362) applies when a Magistrate, during inquiry or trial and before delivering judgment, is satisfied that although the case is initially triable by them, in the interest of justice it ought to be tried by the Sessions Court; this grants the Magistrate the discretion to commit at any stage prior to judgment, and no specific fixed timeline is prescribed for such committal beyond the requirement that it occur before judgment is signed.

Research that Engages with

‘MAJOR BOTTLENECKS IN PROCEDURAL LAWS AFFECTING EXPEDITIOUS CONCLUSION OF CRIMINAL TRIALS AND MEASURES NEEDED TO REMOVE SUCH BOTTLENECKS’

This research paper examines the procedural delays in the Indian criminal justice system, analysing empirical data across investigation, charge-stage, committal/commitment stage, trial, and execution. It identifies that a significant amount of delay occurs at the stage of commitment/committal by the magistrate (i.e., sending or committing the case to higher court) because of non-appearance of accused, procedural inefficiencies, and backlog of cases. It suggests reforms to streamline the commitment phase (among others) and strengthen procedural controls to reduce pendency. All these figures cumulatively point out to delay, whether it was a Complaint case, Magisterial Cases or sessions trial case, to be the major reason for the delay in disposal of criminal cases.

Cognizance And Committal Of Case By Magistrate Under Cr.P.C.: The Law and Relevant Case Laws

Committal refers to the process of forwarding a case from a Magistrate to a higher Court for trial. Section 209 lays down the conditions under which a Magistrate can commit a case to a Sessions Court for trial. This article provides a doctrinal overview of how a magistrate takes cognizance of offences under sections such as 190 CrPC, and how the magistrate commits (or must commit) a case to a Court of Session under section 209 CrPC when the offence is exclusively triable by that court. It outlines the legislative provisions (section 207, section 208, section 209) and walks through relevant case law to show how courts have interpreted committal, emphasising that the magistrate must apply their mind and that committal is distinct from trial.

Bridging the Procedural Gap under the BNSS: Rethinking Sessions Courts’ Powers to Direct Committal in Cross, Counter and Connected Cases

This blog states that In particular, amongst others, the sessions trial procedure applies to two kinds of cases:

1. Cases exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, as per the said Schedule, that fall under Section 232 of the BNSS, 2023/Section 209 CrPC, 1973 wherein the Magistrate is outrightly disempowered to try, thereby casting a legal mandate upon him to commit the case to the Sessions Court after taking cognizance. For brevity, the article refers to them as “mandatorily committable” cases.
2. Cases not exclusively triable by the Sessions Court but the Magistrate ought to commit them under Section 362 of the BNSS, 2023/Section 323 CrPC, 1973. These are cases where the Magistrate is shown to be empowered to try as per Schedule I of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; however, in light of the other factors, he is satisfied that the trial ought to be done by the Sessions Court by following a similar procedure as applicable to “mandatorily committable” cases. These include a wide-ranging set of cases, such as cross/counter and connected cases, wherein a joint trial (for connected cases) and a separate trial (of the cross-case) by the Court already seized of the matter might be desirable in the interest of justice. Such cases have been described as “otherwise committable” cases henceforth.

While Section 232 BNSS (former Section 209 CrPC) obligates a Magistrate to commit cases exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same mandatory duty does not exist for cases that are otherwise committable under Section 362 BNSS (former Section 323 CrPC), even when they arise from the same incident and should ideally be tried together to ensure consistency, avoid contradictory verdicts, and prevent miscarriage of justice. The blog highlights that the Sessions Court currently has no statutory power to call for or direct committal of such linked cases, even though it does possess the power to return wrongly committed cases under Section 251 BNSS (former Section 228 CrPC), creating an internal inconsistency in the procedural scheme. Because the existing framework relies entirely on the Magistrate’s discretion (and there is no statutory duty on police or prosecution to disclose the existence of connected matters), opportunities for manipulation, delay, forum shopping, or suppression of related cases arise. The author proposes an amendment empowering the Sessions Court, either by adding a proviso to Section 362 BNSS on the lines of Section 232 BNSS, or by modifying Section 251 BNSS, so that the Sessions Court can direct committal where a primary sessions-triable case is already pending. The article further suggests complementary reforms: imposing a duty on Magistrates to certify whether connected cases exist, requiring investigating agencies to flag such cases, and expanding Section 448 BNSS (former Section 408 CrPC) to allow the Sessions Court to order transfer of connected matters. The author concludes that unless this lacuna is addressed, procedural fragmentation will persist, undermining fair trial and judicial efficiency, and that statutory empowerment of the Sessions Court is essential to close the “committal gap” in the BNSS.

Committal in other countries

United Kingdom (England & Wales)

In England & Wales the term “committal proceedings” is used principally in two senses: (a) in criminal law, to describe a hearing in a magistrates’ court convened to decide if an accused should be committed for trial (for more serious offences) in a higher court; and (b) in civil/contempt matters to describe proceedings by which a party may be committed (imprisoned) for contempt of court for failing to obey a court order (under Civil Procedure Rules 2020 Part 81).

United States

The U.S. generally does not use the classic committal procedure; instead, serious federal and many state prosecutions use either (a) a grand jury indictment (secret proceeding) or (b) a preliminary hearing before a magistrate/judge to test probable cause — both serving to screen charges but operating under different rules and protections from the common-law committal. (See comparative discussions of grand juries vs preliminary hearings and federal magistrate rules.)

Canada

Canada retains preliminary inquiries/committals for indictable (serious) offences: a provincial court judge hears evidence to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to commit the accused for trial in a superior court; the Criminal Code contains the statutory framework and prescribed forms (including warrants of committal). Recent practice and legislative changes have narrowed some preliminary inquiry uses, but the basic committal function remains.

Australia (selected States, e.g. Victoria)

Australian jurisdictions (Victoria, NSW, etc.) use committal hearings in magistrates’/local courts as a gatekeeping step for indictable offences: magistrates assess whether the prosecution’s evidence is sufficient to support a trial in higher courts. States have reviewed and in some cases reformed committal procedure (including fast-tracking options and pre-trial case management), so practice can vary by state.