Metropolitan Magistrate Under CrPC: Powers, Supervisory Structure, and the Role of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
- Umang
- 3 days ago
- 16 min read
The Urban Criminal Court: Why Metropolitan Magistrates Exist at All
Powers of Metropolitan Magistrates: Their Place in the Sentencing Hierarchy
How the CrPC Reads 'Magistrate' in a Metropolitan Area: Section 3
How the Metropolitan Magistrate Differs From the Judicial Magistrate in the Districts
Position Under BNSS: The Abolition of Metropolitan Magistrates
Consider the sheer caseload of a criminal court sitting in Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, or Delhi — cities whose daily criminal filing numbers are, in themselves, more than several district courts across the country put together.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC") recognised that the criminal administration of such urban concentrations required a distinct institutional design. That recognition produced the Metropolitan Magistrate — a judicial officer who corresponds to, but is not identical with, the Judicial Magistrate in the districts.
The relationship between a Metropolitan Magistrate and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who presides over him, and the supervisory chain that links them both to the Sessions Judge and the High Court, is worth examining with precision — not least because the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS") has abolished the category entirely, making this a chapter of Indian criminal procedure law that now belongs to history.
What Is a Metropolitan Area? The Section 8 Framework
Before the institution of the Metropolitan Magistrate can be understood, the territorial unit within which he operates must be grasped. The CrPC defines "metropolitan area" in Section 2(k) by reference to Section 8 — and Section 8 provides the substantive criteria.
The Population Threshold and Deemed Metropolitan Areas
Under Section 8(1), the State Government may, by notification, declare any area comprising a city or town whose population exceeds one million to be a metropolitan area for the purposes of the Code.
The population figure is determined with reference to the latest preceding census for which the relevant figures have been published — the Explanation to Section 8 makes this clear.
By sub-section (2), four urban centres were automatically treated as metropolitan areas upon the commencement of the Code: Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, and Ahmedabad.
These were the old Presidency-towns, and the CrPC's drafters, having abolished the Presidency-Magistrates of the old Code and reconstituted them as Metropolitan Magistrates, preserved the institutional continuity of the criminal courts in those cities by deeming them metropolitan areas without requiring a fresh notification.
Alteration, Reduction, and Cessation of Metropolitan Status
Metropolitan status is not immutable. The State Government may, by notification, extend, reduce, or alter the limits of a declared metropolitan area under Section 8(3) — but with a constitutional minimum: the population of the area after reduction or alteration cannot fall below one million.
If the population of a metropolitan area actually falls below that threshold, the area ceases to be a metropolitan area from such date as the State Government may notify [Section 8(4)].
Crucially, any inquiry, trial, or appeal pending immediately before such cessation shall continue to be dealt with under the Code as if the cessation had not taken place — a saving provision that protects the rights of parties mid-proceeding.
The same saving rule applies where limits are reduced or altered under Section 8(3): pending inquiries, trials, and appeals are unaffected [Section 8(5)].
For the purposes of the CrPC, every metropolitan area as declared under Section 8 is treated as a separate sessions division and district [Section 7, proviso].
This has a structural consequence of significance: there shall be a Sessions Judge in a metropolitan area as well, and the Metropolitan Magistrates in that area ultimately look upward, through the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, to that Sessions Judge.
Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates: Section 16
Establishment: State Government Notification, High Court Appointment
Section 16(1) provides that in every metropolitan area, as many Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates shall be established, and at such places, as the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, by notification, specify. The establishment of the court — its number and location — is an executive function exercised by the State Government, but in consultation with the High Court.
The presiding officers of such Courts, however, are appointed by the High Court alone [Section 16(2)]. This reflects the CrPC's central structural choice after separation of the judiciary from the executive: all judicial appointments flow through the High Court, not the State Government. The State Government determines how many courts there shall be and where they shall sit; the High Court decides who shall preside over them.
There will be no Benches of Metropolitan Magistrates — old Section 19 of the Code of 1898, which provided for such Benches, was omitted by the new Code. Each Metropolitan Magistrate's Court is a standalone judicial unit.
Territorial Jurisdiction: Throughout the Metropolitan Area
Section 16(3) is simple but consequential: "the jurisdiction and powers of every Metropolitan Magistrate shall extend throughout the metropolitan area."
Every Metropolitan Magistrate — whether the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, or any other — has territorial jurisdiction coextensive with the entire metropolitan area to which he has been appointed [Section 16(1)], even if the area is sub-divided for administrative convenience (Sevantilal v. State, AIR 1969 Guj 63).
The jurisdiction extends to every corner of that area, including any jail or port situated within it (Ganpat v. Good, (1919) 47 Cal 147).
This is a significant departure from the position of Judicial Magistrates in the districts, whose jurisdiction, while extending throughout the district as a default, may be trimmed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14(1). There is no corresponding sub-divisional restriction in the metropolitan courts.
Concurrent Jurisdiction and the Rule Against Revival
Since all Metropolitan Magistrates within the same metropolitan area have concurrent jurisdiction over the entire area, the question of which Magistrate should hear a particular case is a matter of business allocation, not territorial demarcation.
The practical consequence of this concurrency is important: when a complaint has been dismissed by one Metropolitan Magistrate, it cannot be revived by another Metropolitan Magistrate on the same facts (Girish, 24 Cal 528).
The res judicata principle, in its criminal law incarnation, applies across the concurrent jurisdiction of courts within the metropolitan area.
The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate: Section 17
Appointment and Mandatory Character
Section 17(1) is cast in mandatory terms: "The High Court shall, in relation to every metropolitan area within its local jurisdiction, appoint a Metropolitan Magistrate to be the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for such metropolitan area."
The language is obligatory — there is no discretion whether to appoint a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate; every metropolitan area must have one. He is appointed from among the Metropolitan Magistrates already functioning in that area.
This section corresponds to Section 18(1) and (4) of the old Code, with one foundational change: under the old Code, the appointment was made by the State Government. Under the CrPC, 1973, the appointment has been vested entirely in the High Court.
This change is consistent with the broader separation of the judiciary from the executive and aligns the metropolitan courts with their district counterparts — the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the districts is similarly a High Court appointee [Section 12(1)].
The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Section 17(2) empowers the High Court to appoint any Metropolitan Magistrate to be an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Such a Magistrate "shall have all or any of the powers of a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under this Code or under any other law for the time being in force as the High Court may direct."
The extent of his powers is therefore defined not by the statute itself but by the High Court's direction — a deliberate flexibility that allows the High Court to calibrate the role of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates based on the needs of particular metropolitan areas.
Under the old Code, the extent of the powers of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate depended on a notification of the State Government. The CrPC transferred this defining power to the High Court — a change that further consolidates judicial autonomy in the metropolitan court structure.
Notably, whatever the High Court may or may not direct regarding the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's powers, the allocation of business to him remains within the competence of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 19(3) — an unalterable assignment of administrative authority.
The Supervisory Structure Under Section 19
Sections 16 and 17 deal with the constitution of the courts; Section 19 deals with the supervisory chain — who answers to whom, and for what.
Sub-section (1): The Two-Tier Chain of Subordination
Section 19(1) establishes a two-tier supervisory architecture:
Tier One: The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and every Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate are subordinate to the Sessions Judge.
Tier Two: Every other Metropolitan Magistrate (i.e., all Metropolitan Magistrates other than the Chief and Additional Chief) is, subject to the general control of the Sessions Judge, subordinate to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
The practical implications of Tier Two subordination are substantial. Since the new Code makes all Metropolitan Magistrates (other than the Additional Chief) subordinate to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as a matter of statutory right — without requiring any notification by the State Government, as was necessary under old Section 21(2) — the following consequences follow directly:
The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is competent to transfer a case from one Metropolitan Magistrate to another (Nageswar, (1899) 1 Bom LR 347).
He can withdraw a case made over to a Metropolitan Magistrate by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mohini v. Punam, (1924) 51 Cal 820).
When an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has been vested with all the powers of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under the direction issued by the High Court under Section 17(2), he may send a case to a Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 202 (Kanayalal v. Kanmull, AIR 1934 Cal 4).
Why the Sessions Judge Sits Above the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
The placement of the Sessions Judge above the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was not present in the old Code, nor in the Law Commission's reports or the Bills of 1970 and 1972 leading up to the CrPC.
The provision first appeared during the passage of the Bill in the Rajya Sabha, in order to place all Judicial Magistrates — whether within or outside metropolitan areas — equally under the subordination of the Sessions Judge.
This was consistent with two structural features of the new Code: first, that there shall be a Sessions Judge in a metropolitan area as well [Sections 7(1), 9(1)]; and second, that both Judicial Magistrates and Metropolitan Magistrates shall be recruited by the High Court from the same sources, as governed by Articles 236 and 237 of the Constitution of India.
The unification of the appellate chain for all magistracy under the Sessions Judge — whether in the districts or in metropolitan areas — was, accordingly, a deliberate act of post-separation constitutional tidying.
Sub-section (2): Variable Subordination of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
The relationship between the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is not fixed by Section 19 itself. Under Section 19(2), the High Court may "define the extent of the subordination, if any, of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate."
The phrase "if any" is significant — it means the High Court may determine that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is not subordinate to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at all, or subordinate only in specified respects.
This variable subordination provision is a relic of old Section 21(2) of the pre-1973 Code, under which this power to define the extent of subordination belonged to the State Government. The CrPC transferred it to the High Court, consistent with the overall shift of judicial supervisory authority away from the executive.
It must be noted, however, that even where the High Court has defined the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's subordination narrowly — or declared none at all — the power to allocate business to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate remains with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 19(3).
Administrative authority over business distribution, as distinguished from judicial supervisory authority, remains vested in the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate irrespective of any High Court direction under Section 19(2).
Sub-section (3): Distribution of Business
Section 19(3) vests in the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate the power to make rules or give special orders, consistent with the Code, regarding two things: the distribution of business among all Metropolitan Magistrates, and the allocation of business to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
This is the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's administrative spine — the authority that makes him something more than merely the most senior judge in the building.
This mirrors the corresponding provision for the district courts, where the Chief Judicial Magistrate enjoys the same administrative authority under Section 15(2).
Powers of Metropolitan Magistrates: Their Place in the Sentencing Hierarchy
The Ordinary Metropolitan Magistrate's Sentencing Powers
Section 29(4) of the CrPC places every Metropolitan Magistrate, for purposes of sentencing, on the same footing as a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. This means a Metropolitan Magistrate may pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or a fine not exceeding ten thousand rupees, or both.
The old Code had conferred the same First Class powers on Presidency Magistrates [old Section 32(1)(a)], and the CrPC maintained this position.
This parity with First Class Judicial Magistrates is the baseline for all Metropolitan Magistrates. There is no class of Metropolitan Magistrates corresponding to Second Class Judicial Magistrates — every Metropolitan Magistrate is, in terms of sentencing authority, a First Class Magistrate.
The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Enhanced Powers
The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is placed on the same level as the Chief Judicial Magistrate for purposes of sentencing. Under Section 29(1), both are empowered to pass sentences of imprisonment up to seven years.
This higher power is consistent with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's supervisory and administrative role — he is expected to handle the more serious and complex cases among those triable at the magistrate level in the metropolitan area.
A significant consequence: under the old Code, there were substantial differences between Magistrates within the Presidency-towns and Magistrates in the rest of the country.
The new Code largely erased those distinctions, bringing both sets of magistracy to the same procedural and sentencing footing. As the source materials note, "the new Code not only maintains this position, but also confers upon the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate the same higher power which has been conferred upon the Chief Judicial Magistrate."
How the CrPC Reads 'Magistrate' in a Metropolitan Area: Section 3
Section 3 of the CrPC provides rules of construction for the word "Magistrate" when used without qualifying words elsewhere in the Code:
In relation to an area outside a metropolitan area, an unqualified reference to a "Magistrate" means a Judicial Magistrate [Section 3(1)(a)(i)].
In relation to a metropolitan area, the same reference means a Metropolitan Magistrate [Section 3(1)(a)(ii)].
A reference to a "Magistrate of the First Class" in a metropolitan area is a reference to a Metropolitan Magistrate exercising jurisdiction in that area [Section 3(1)(c)(i)].
A reference to the "Chief Judicial Magistrate" in relation to a metropolitan area is a reference to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate exercising jurisdiction in that area [Section 3(1)(d)].
A reference to the "Court of a Judicial Magistrate" in relation to a metropolitan area is a reference to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate for that area [Section 3(2)].
These are not trivial drafting devices. They ensure that every provision of the Code — including provisions in Chapters dealing with investigation, cognizance, trial, evidence, and appeals — applies uniformly across metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas, merely by the operation of the Section 3 construction rules. Without these rules, every section of the Code referring to a "Magistrate" or the "Chief Judicial Magistrate" would need a separate metropolitan-area provision.
Special Metropolitan Magistrates Under Section 18
The metropolitan courts have a counterpart to the Special Judicial Magistrates of Section 13: Special Metropolitan Magistrates, governed by Section 18. The provisions mirror Section 13 closely.
The High Court may, if requested by the Central or State Government, confer upon any person who holds or has held any post under the Government all or any of the powers conferred on a Metropolitan Magistrate — in respect of particular cases or classes of cases, within a metropolitan area — provided such person possesses the legal qualifications prescribed by the High Court [Section 18(1)].
Special Metropolitan Magistrates are appointed for terms not exceeding one year at a time [Section 18(2)]. Under Section 18(3), the High Court or the State Government may empower a Special Metropolitan Magistrate to exercise the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class in any local area outside the metropolitan area — the converse of Section 13(3), which permits a Special Judicial Magistrate to be extended Metropolitan Magistrate powers.
The constitutional validity of Section 18(1) was initially challenged on the same grounds as Section 13(1) — the Madras High Court struck down the restriction to Government servants as violative of Article 14 in Narayanaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1984) CrLJ 1583. The Supreme Court overruled this in Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar, (1997) 4 SCC 287, upholding both Section 13(1) and Section 18(1) as constitutionally valid.
How the Metropolitan Magistrate Differs From the Judicial Magistrate in the Districts
The differences between a Metropolitan Magistrate and a Judicial Magistrate are fewer under the CrPC than they were under the old Code, but they are not negligible.
Classification: Judicial Magistrates in the districts are divided into First Class and Second Class. Metropolitan Magistrates carry no such internal classification — every Metropolitan Magistrate exercises First Class sentencing powers as a default. There is no Metropolitan Magistrate of the Second Class.
Territorial jurisdiction: A Judicial Magistrate's jurisdiction, though extending throughout the district by default, may be confined to a sub-division or defined local area by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14(1). A Metropolitan Magistrate's jurisdiction extends throughout the entire metropolitan area [Section 16(3)] and cannot be carved up in the same manner, given the absence of any sub-divisional structure on the judicial side in metropolitan areas.
No Sub-divisional Metropolitan Magistrate: The CrPC creates no position of Sub-divisional Metropolitan Magistrate on the judicial side — whereas the districts have Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrates [Section 12(3)].
As the source materials observe, this omission is presumably because of the comparative smallness of a metropolitan area even when its population is large. There is, of course, no bar to a sub-divisional Executive Magistrate being appointed for a metropolitan area under Section 20(4).
Administrative structure: The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's administrative authority over business distribution is structurally identical to that of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
There is, however, the critical difference in the Additional Chief: while the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is unambiguously subordinate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate [Section 15(1)], the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's subordination to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is variable — defined, if at all, by the High Court under Section 19(2).
Position Under BNSS: The Abolition of Metropolitan Magistrates
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 makes the most sweeping structural change since the CrPC itself: the category of Metropolitan Magistrate is abolished. The BNSS comparison table records that CrPC Section 6 (Classes of Criminal Courts) is amended in the BNSS to exclude the words "in any Metropolitan area, Metropolitan Magistrates."
The consequential amendments have been effected across numerous sections of the BNSS — specifically Sections 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, 22, 29, 113, 196, 214, 320, 321, 415, 422, and 436 — wherever references to Metropolitan Magistrates, Chief Metropolitan Magistrates, or metropolitan areas in a Judicial Magistrate context previously appeared.
The position of Judicial Magistrate of the Third Class was also abolished, alongside the position of Assistant Sessions Judges.
What this means practically is that courts sitting in Bombay, Calcutta, Chennai, and other metropolitan areas will, under the BNSS, function as Courts of Judicial Magistrates rather than Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates — with the framework of Sections 16 to 19 of the CrPC ceasing to govern them.
The BNSS's approach removes the structural distinction between urban and non-urban criminal courts at the Magistrate level, applying a uniform judicial magistracy framework across the entire country.
It is worth noting that Section 17 (Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate) and Section 18 (Special Metropolitan Magistrates) appear among the sections affected by these consequential amendments in the BNSS, consistent with the complete dismantling of the metropolitan court superstructure at the Magistrate level.
Conclusion
The Metropolitan Magistrate under the CrPC, 1973 was the urban successor of the Presidency Magistrate under the old Code — reconstituted, shorn of the colonial nomenclature, placed firmly under High Court appointment, and brought broadly in line with the Judicial Magistrates of the districts.
Sections 16 to 19 built a compact but complete institutional architecture: a court of wide territorial jurisdiction over the entire metropolitan area, a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate exercising supervisory and administrative authority over his fellow-judges, an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate whose precise powers are shaped by High Court directions, and a Sessions Judge at the apex of the metropolitan judicial magistracy.
The supervisory chain — Metropolitan Magistrate subordinate to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate subordinate to Sessions Judge, Sessions Judge subject to High Court oversight — was consciously designed to replicate in the metropolitan courts the same judicial governance structure that the CrPC created for the districts.
The abolition of this category by the BNSS represents a deliberate legislative choice to simplify and unify Indian criminal court architecture. For practitioners who dealt with metropolitan courts for the five decades of the CrPC's life, Sections 16 to 19 remain essential reading — both as part of the law that governed pending proceedings at the time of transition, and as an illustration of how procedural law responds to the distinct demands of urban criminal administration.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is the difference between a Metropolitan Magistrate and a Judicial Magistrate under CrPC?
Both are Judicial officers appointed by the High Court and subject to its oversight. A Metropolitan Magistrate functions in a declared metropolitan area (population over one million), exercises jurisdiction throughout that entire area, and carries the sentencing powers of a First Class Judicial Magistrate as a default — there is no Second Class Metropolitan Magistrate. A Judicial Magistrate functions in a district outside a metropolitan area, may be of the First or Second Class, and his jurisdiction may be limited to a sub-division or defined local area by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The CrPC largely equalised their powers and procedures, removing the older distinctions between Presidency and district magistracy.
Q: Who appoints the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and what are his supervisory powers?
The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is appointed by the High Court under Section 17(1) — the appointment is mandatory for every metropolitan area. He supervises all Metropolitan Magistrates (other than the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate) by virtue of Section 19(1), and may transfer cases between them or withdraw cases made over by the Additional Chief. He also distributes business among all Metropolitan Magistrates, including the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, under Section 19(3).
Q: Is the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate subordinate to the Sessions Judge?
Yes. Under Section 19(1), both the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and every Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate are expressly made subordinate to the Sessions Judge. This provision was introduced during the passage of the CrPC in the Rajya Sabha — it did not exist in the Bills of 1970 and 1972 — in order to place all Judicial Magistrates, whether inside or outside metropolitan areas, equally within the supervisory reach of the Sessions Judge.
Q: What is the sentencing power of a Metropolitan Magistrate?
Every Metropolitan Magistrate has the sentencing powers of a First Class Judicial Magistrate — a term of imprisonment up to three years and a fine up to ten thousand rupees, or both [Section 29(4) CrPC]. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has enhanced powers equivalent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, permitting sentences of imprisonment up to seven years [Section 29(1)].
Q: Have Metropolitan Magistrates been retained under the BNSS?
No. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 abolishes the category of Metropolitan Magistrates. The BNSS excludes the words "in any Metropolitan area, Metropolitan Magistrates" from the enumeration of Criminal Courts, and consequential amendments have been made across all BNSS sections that previously referenced Metropolitan Magistrates and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Courts in former metropolitan areas now function within the uniform framework of Judicial Magistrates applicable across all of India.
Comments