Committal magistracy as solution to protracted trials?

Resolving a case in our country often takes years due to excessive case backlogs, shortage of judges and procedural delays. Today, our judicial system is grappled with over 40 lakh pending cases in lower courts. This trend of protracted trial process not only frustrates the people but also erodes their trust in the judicial system. Additionally, taking the low conviction rates into account, it can also be inferred that a majority of the cases are not based on veracious grounds and evidence. Historically, our judicial system champions the legal principle, which was popularised by Benjamin Franklin as follows: ‘it is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer’. In my opinion, one of the key legal tools to protect this legal principle and at the same time, expedite disposal of the plenteous cases is the establishment of ‘committal magistracy’.

‘Committal Magistracy’ refers to the preliminary hearing in a magistrate’s court where it is determined whether there exists enough evidence against the accused to send the case to be tried to a competent trial court. The complainant merely having a prima facie case does not necessarily mean that the credible evidence exist in their favour. In such circumstances, referring cases with inadequate and mendacious evidence to competent court renders expedited trials almost impossible. To remedy this, a committal magistrate can assess the weight and plausibility of evidence and decide whether it can be sent for trial at all.

Interestingly, in the Indian sub-continent, the provision for committal proceeding was spelled out in Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC). However, in Bangladesh, the Chapter was omitted from the CrPC in 1978 by operation of section 2 read with the Schedule of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1978. Unfortunately, no alternative provision to substitute the process was laid down afterwards.

Referring cases with inadequate and mendacious evidence to competent court renders expedited trials almost impossible. To remedy this, a committal magistrate can assess the weight and plausibility of evidence and decide whether it can be sent for trial at all.

In criminal justice system of Bangladesh, in absence of committal proceedings, magistrates are exclusively empowered to take cognizance of cases under section 190 of CrPC. Without taking cognizance by competent magistrate, no case can be tried by a trial court. In this stage, magistrates are to notice whether there exists a prima facie case and whether it is barred by any law in force. While taking cognizance Magistrates only takes notice of the evidence adduced by the complainant and abstains from looking at defence’s evidence. This differentiates cognizance taking from a committal proceeding.

The Criminal Justice Act 1967 of the United Kingdom requires committal proceedings to take place between the accused’s debut in the court and the beginning of the actual trial against them. In India as well, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 laid down the process in section 232 through which a magistrate after a preliminary reviewing of evidence of a case could commit the case to the Court of Sessions.

The CrPC, 1898 has recently experienced a significant amendment making sweeping changes in arrest and investigation process by police. But changes for expediting disposal remained conspicuously absent. Committal magistracy system might be a legal wand in armory of judiciary to redress the victim and uphold dignity of the innocent.

The writer is student of law at the University of Dhaka.