Central Reserve Police Force Law · Judicial Trial · Ordinary Criminal Court · Section 16(2) · Jurisdiction

CRPF Rules 36B–36J: Criminal Court vs Commandant, 21-Day Notice, Trial Jurisdiction & Transfer of Accused

Chapter VI-A of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 governs the adjustment of jurisdiction between ordinary criminal courts and Commandants or Assistant Commandants invested with magisterial powers under Section 16(2) of the CRPF Act, 1949. The chapter is short but procedurally important: it defines “Magistrate,” regulates when an ordinary Magistrate may proceed, requires a 21-day notice in the Rule 36E(a) situation, requires communication back to the ordinary court when custody is transferred, and provides for delivery of an accused to the ordinary Magistrate when the Commandant considers that forum appropriate.

The governing statutory material is the official CRPF compilation of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, read with Section 16 of the CRPF Act, 1949. For the immediately preceding provisions on desertion, Court of Inquiry, Orderly Room, property loss and judicial trials, see our guide to CRPF Rules 31–36A.

1. Statutory foundation — Section 16(2) of the CRPF Act

Section 16(2) authorises the Central Government to invest a Commandant or Assistant Commandant with powers of a Magistrate of any class for inquiry into or trial of specified offences committed by members of the Force. The provision covers offences punishable under the CRPF Act and offences by one member of the Force against the person or property of another member.

The proviso then recognises circumstances in which an ordinary criminal court may be selected: where the offender is on leave or absent from duty, where the offence is not connected with the offender’s duties as a member of the Force, or where it is a petty offence even if connected with duty, provided the prescribed authority directs trial by the ordinary criminal court having jurisdiction.

2. Rule 36A and Chapter VI-A work together

Rule 36A identifies the Commandant as the prescribed authority for the proviso to Section 16(2). Chapter VI-A, beginning with Rule 36B, then regulates the mechanics of jurisdictional adjustment between the ordinary Magistrate and the CRPF side.

The practical question is therefore not simply “which court has jurisdiction?” but rather: which forum has jurisdiction over this offence, whether the statutory choice of forum has been lawfully exercised, whether the required notices have been served, and whether the accused has been delivered to the proper forum.

3. Rule 36B — “Magistrate” means the ordinary Magistrate

For Chapter VI-A, Rule 36B defines “Magistrate” as a Magistrate other than a Commandant or Assistant Commandant upon whom magisterial powers have been conferred under Section 16(2).

This definition prevents confusion in the succeeding rules. When Rules 36E, 36F, 36H and 36J speak of the “Magistrate,” they are referring to the ordinary criminal court, not the CRPF officer exercising delegated magisterial power.

4. Srikand Prasad — Rule 36B does not take away the Commandant’s magisterial power

In Srikand Prasad v. Union of India, Gauhati High Court, 19 July 2006, the Court rejected an interpretation under which Rule 36B would deprive an empowered Commandant or Assistant Commandant of the power to conduct a judicial trial.

The Court held that Rule 36B defines “Magistrate” only for the Chapter dealing with adjustment of jurisdiction of ordinary courts. It does not nullify the separate statutory power under Section 16(2) by which a Commandant or Assistant Commandant may be invested with magisterial authority.

5. Rule 36C — deleted

Rule 36C has been deleted by G.S.R. 163 dated 26 February 1983. It should not be cited as a presently operative procedural requirement.

This matters because older pleadings, manuals or judgments may reproduce pre-1983 text. The operative chapter must be read in its amended form.

6. Rule 36D — deleted

Rule 36D was deleted by G.S.R. 544 dated 27 March 1976. It is distinct from Rule 36DD, which was inserted later and remains part of the published rule text.

7. Rule 36DD — English or Hindi may be used

Rule 36DD permits either English or Hindi to be used by Commandants or Assistant Commandants while exercising magisterial powers under Section 16(2) for inquiry into or trial of an offence.

The provision concerns the language of the proceeding before the empowered CRPF officer. It does not dilute the obligation to ensure that the accused understands the accusation, the plea, the evidence and the proceeding. Where comprehension is genuinely in issue, the record should demonstrate how the substance of the proceedings was communicated.

8. Rule 36E — ordinary Magistrate not to proceed automatically

Rule 36E applies when a person subject to the CRPF Act is brought before an ordinary Magistrate and charged with an offence falling within the main paragraph of Section 16(2) for which he is liable to be tried.

The ordinary Magistrate shall not proceed to inquire into or try the offence unless one of two conditions exists:

• Rule 36E(a): the Magistrate is of the opinion, for reasons to be recorded, that he should proceed even though he has not been moved by the Commandant; or
• Rule 36E(b): the Magistrate is moved to proceed by the Commandant.

9. Rule 36E is a jurisdictional coordination provision

Rule 36E should not be treated as a mere administrative courtesy. It prevents an ordinary Magistrate from simply proceeding as though the CRPF special statutory arrangement did not exist.

Where the Magistrate invokes Rule 36E(a), the reasons recorded become material. Where the Magistrate proceeds because he has been moved by the Commandant under Rule 36E(b), the Commandant’s written decision or communication should form part of the record.

10. Reasons under Rule 36E(a) should be identifiable from the record

The Rule expressly uses the formulation “for reasons to be recorded.” A jurisdictional challenge should therefore seek the order-sheet or judicial record containing those reasons. The court cannot ordinarily cure the absence of recorded reasons by relying only on an explanation furnished later in an affidavit.

The strength of any challenge will depend on whether the omission is merely formal or whether it goes to the statutory assumption of jurisdiction and causes demonstrable prejudice.

11. Rule 36F — mandatory written notice to the Commandant

Where the ordinary Magistrate proposes to proceed under Rule 36E(a), Rule 36F requires written notice to the Commandant. After service of that notice, the Rule creates a waiting period of twenty-one days.

During that period the Magistrate is restrained from taking the specified decisive procedural steps stated in Rule 36F. Historically, those steps are expressed by reference to sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

12. Why the 21-day period exists

The 21-day interval gives the CRPF command structure a meaningful opportunity to assert or regularise the appropriate forum under Section 16(2) and the Rules. It prevents a race to judgment after the ordinary Magistrate decides to proceed independently.

In practice, the following dates should be placed side by side: date of Rule 36F notice, date of service on the Commandant, date of any Commandant response, date of production or transfer of the accused, and date of the next substantive judicial step before the ordinary court.

13. Rule 36F prohibits specified substantive steps during the waiting period

The published rule text restrains the ordinary Magistrate, during the 21-day period, from taking the specified steps corresponding to conviction/acquittal, hearing the accused in defence, framing a written charge, committing the accused for trial before the higher criminal court, or transferring the case for inquiry or trial.

Because the text contains historical references to the 1898 Code, counsel should identify the contemporary procedural equivalent rather than mechanically lifting the old section numbers into a present-day petition.

14. The CrPC/BNSS problem must be addressed expressly in current cases

Rule 36 and Rule 36F continue to contain references derived from the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The official CRPF website presently describes judicial trials under Sections 9 and 10 read with Rules 36 and 36E–36J as being conducted on a summons-trial model under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

However, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024. For a proceeding instituted or continued after that date, counsel must examine the BNSS, especially the repeal-and-savings mechanism in Section 531, the date on which the particular proceeding commenced, and the corresponding modern procedural provision.

15. Jaipati Yadav / S.K. Pradhani — recent judicial attention to the antiquated wording

In the 24 March 2026 Chhattisgarh High Court decision in Jaipati Yadav v. Union of India / connected matter, the Court noted that Rule 36 still formally refers to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and that the common editorial notation “see now the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973” is not itself a legislative amendment.

The point is not that present-day CRPF trials operate in a procedural vacuum. It is that the practitioner should avoid casual statutory substitution and should explain the legal bridge from the special rule to the currently governing criminal-procedure legislation.

16. Rule 36G — deleted

Rule 36G was deleted by G.S.R. 163 dated 26 February 1983. Any contemporary analysis of Chapter VI-A should therefore move from Rule 36F directly to Rule 36H.

17. Rule 36H — ordinary Magistrate must be informed what happened

Rule 36H becomes relevant when an accused person has been delivered by the ordinary Magistrate to the Commandant or Assistant Commandant. The CRPF authority must, as soon as may be, inform the Magistrate whether the accused has been tried by him or whether any other effectual proceeding has been taken or ordered against the accused.

This rule closes the communication loop. Transfer of the accused from the ordinary criminal court cannot simply disappear into an internal file without accountability to the court that delivered him.

18. “Other effectual proceedings” should be identifiable

The phrase “other effectual proceedings” should be read as requiring a real legal step rather than indefinite administrative inaction. The communication should identify what has actually been done or ordered.

Where the record only states that the “matter is under consideration” for an indefinite period, Rule 36H(2) may become relevant because the ordinary Magistrate must be told whether the accused has in fact been tried or otherwise lawfully proceeded against.

19. Rule 36H(2) — State Government involvement if no effective action follows

If the Magistrate is informed that the accused has not been tried and no other effectual proceeding has been taken or ordered, Rule 36H(2) requires the Magistrate to report the circumstances to the State Government.

The State Government may then, in consultation with the Central Government, take appropriate steps to ensure that the accused is dealt with according to law. The provision is a safeguard against jurisdictional limbo.

20. Rule 36I — deleted

Rule 36I has also been deleted by G.S.R. 163 dated 26 February 1983. It should not be treated as an operative intermediate stage between Rules 36H and 36J.

21. Rule 36J — Commandant to deliver accused to ordinary Magistrate

Rule 36J applies where a person subject to the Act has committed an offence which, in the Commandant’s opinion, is to be tried by an ordinary Magistrate in accordance with the law in force.

The Commandant must give written notice to the concerned Magistrate and deliver the accused under proper escort to that Magistrate.

22. Rule 36J is the reverse movement from Rule 36H

Rule 36H regulates communication after the ordinary Magistrate has delivered the accused to the CRPF authority. Rule 36J regulates the opposite direction: where the Commandant considers the ordinary criminal court to be the proper trial forum, he is to notify that Magistrate and send the accused to the court under proper escort.

These rules should be read as a coordinated mechanism rather than isolated procedural clauses.

23. Srikand Prasad — both forums may be legally available

Srikand Prasad is important because it recognises that an offence under the CRPF Act may, depending on the statutory conditions, be tried either by the ordinary Judicial Magistrate or by a Commandant/Assistant Commandant who has actually been invested with the requisite magisterial powers.

The mere existence of an ordinary criminal court does not render the empowered CRPF Magistrate incompetent. Conversely, the existence of Section 16(2) does not eliminate the ordinary criminal court where the statutory route to that court has been properly invoked.

24. Dharamraj Kumar Singh — empowered Commandant is still conducting a criminal trial

In Dharamraj Kumar Singh v. Union of India, Gauhati High Court, 29 May 2007, the Court emphasised that vesting magisterial powers in a Commandant or Assistant Commandant does not convert the proceeding into an ordinary departmental enquiry.

The empowered officer must function judicially and follow the criminal trial procedure applicable to the prosecution. A subsequent administrative or disciplinary consequence flowing from conviction is analytically distinct from the conviction itself.

25. Suresh Kumar — overstayal tried by Commandant exercising magisterial power

In Shri Suresh Kumar v. Union of India, Delhi High Court, 27 July 2010, the petitioner was tried by a Commandant exercising powers of a Judicial Magistrate under Section 16(2) for overstayal of leave punishable under Section 10(m).

The case illustrates the practical coexistence of CRPF service consequences and a judicial conviction. The conviction was not simply a departmental finding; the Commandant was acting in a judicial capacity for the criminal trial.

26. The same officer can have different legal capacities

A recurring source of confusion is that the same Commandant may appear in different capacities in the same factual sequence. He may act as commanding officer, prescribed authority under Rule 36A, Magistrate if lawfully invested under Section 16(2), and disciplinary authority under service rules.

Each capacity has a separate source of power. A lawful order in one capacity does not automatically satisfy the procedural requirements attached to another.

27. Capacity chart

Capacity	Source	Function
Commanding/administrative officer	CRPF Act/Rules and command structure	Unit administration and statutory command functions
Prescribed authority	Rule 36A read with proviso to Section 16(2)	May direct qualifying cases to ordinary criminal court
Magistrate	Specific investment of power under Section 16(2)	Conducts judicial inquiry/trial
Disciplinary authority	Section 11/12 and Rule 27 framework as applicable	Service penalty or consequential disciplinary action

28. Verify the actual notification investing magisterial powers

Section 16(2) does not make every Commandant or Assistant Commandant a Magistrate merely by virtue of rank. The power must be conferred by the Central Government in accordance with the statute.

The official CRPF website states that officers of Commandant and equivalent rank are granted necessary powers under Ministry of Home Affairs notification No. J.II-9/74-ADM-GPA-I(MHA) dated 25 January 1978. In any contested trial, however, counsel should still obtain and verify the notification or order applicable to the officer who actually conducted the proceeding and to the relevant time.

29. Forum choice should be apparent from contemporaneous records

A proper prosecution file should enable the court to reconstruct the forum-selection process. Depending on the facts, this may include the FIR or complaint, production memo, Commandant’s decision, Rule 36E reasons, Rule 36F notice, acknowledgment of service, custody-transfer documents, the Section 16(2) empowerment notification, and the trial record.

Absence of these records can become significant where jurisdiction is challenged after conviction.

30. Rule 36E/F audit checklist

• Was the accused a person subject to the CRPF Act on the relevant date?
• What precise offence was alleged?
• Did the offence fall within the main paragraph of Section 16(2)?
• Was the ordinary Magistrate moved by the Commandant under Rule 36E(b)?
• If not, did the Magistrate record reasons under Rule 36E(a)?
• Was written Rule 36F notice served on the Commandant?
• What was the exact date of service?
• Were 21 days allowed to expire before the prohibited substantive step?
• Did the Commandant respond or assert the CRPF forum within that period?
• Was the accused transferred under lawful custody documentation?
• Was the officer who later tried the case actually invested with magisterial powers?

31. Rule 36H/J custody checklist

• order or request under which the accused was handed over;
• date, time and place of custody transfer;
• escort and production documents;
• communication from CRPF authority to the Magistrate under Rule 36H;
• whether the communication identifies an actual trial or other effectual proceeding;
• Rule 36H(2) report to the State Government, where required;
• Commandant’s opinion directing ordinary-court trial under Rule 36J;
• written notice to the concerned Magistrate;
• production of the accused before the identified court; and
• subsequent remand, bail and trial orders under the applicable criminal-procedure law.

32. Criminal appeal is not the same as Rule 28 departmental appeal

A conviction by a Commandant acting as Magistrate is a judicial determination. It should not be challenged merely by treating it as a Rule 27 punishment order and filing only a Rule 28 departmental appeal.

The correct criminal appellate or revisional remedy must be identified from the class of Magistrate, the sentence/order under challenge, the criminal procedure law applicable to the date of the proceeding, and the territorial structure of the criminal courts.

33. Manoj Kumar Bairagi — territorial appellate jurisdiction can itself become disputed

In Manoj Kumar Bairagi v. Union of India, Chhattisgarh High Court, 9 September 2022, the Court dealt with a jurisdictional dispute concerning the criminal appeal from a conviction by an empowered CRPF Commandant.

The case demonstrates why counsel must identify not only the nature of the remedy but also the territorial criminal court having appellate jurisdiction. The battalion headquarters, place of trial, place of offence and location of the empowered officer may all require examination under the applicable procedural law.

34. Judicial review remains distinct from statutory criminal remedies

Article 226 jurisdiction may be invoked in appropriate cases involving jurisdictional error, violation of fundamental procedural safeguards or other public-law defects, but it should not casually replace an available criminal appeal or revision against the conviction itself.

Where both a conviction and a consequential dismissal are challenged, the petition should analytically separate the challenge to the judicial order from the challenge to the later service order.

35. Common errors in Chapter VI-A cases

• treating Rule 36B as if it excludes magisterial power of a lawfully empowered Commandant;
• citing deleted Rules 36C, 36D, 36G or 36I as currently operative;
• confusing deleted Rule 36D with surviving Rule 36DD;
• ordinary Magistrate proceeding without satisfying Rule 36E;
• failure to record reasons under Rule 36E(a);
• failure to serve Rule 36F written notice on the Commandant;
• taking a prohibited substantive step before expiry of 21 days;
• using old CrPC section numbers without mapping the current procedural provision;
• ignoring the BNSS commencement and savings issue after 1 July 2024;
• assuming a Commandant has magisterial power merely because of rank;
• failing to verify the actual Central Government empowerment notification;
• custody transfer without proper Rule 36H or Rule 36J documentation;
• CRPF authority failing to tell the Magistrate whether the accused was actually tried;
• treating a judicial conviction as though it were merely a departmental finding; and
• using a departmental appeal as a substitute for the proper criminal appellate remedy.

36. Frequently asked questions

What does Rule 36B mean by “Magistrate”?

For Chapter VI-A, it means the ordinary Magistrate and excludes a Commandant or Assistant Commandant exercising magisterial power under Section 16(2).

Are Rules 36C and 36D still in force?

No. Rule 36C was deleted in 1983 and Rule 36D in 1976. Rule 36DD, however, remains part of the published rule text.

Can a Commandant conduct a criminal judicial trial?

Yes, where the Central Government has lawfully invested that Commandant with the requisite magisterial powers under Section 16(2) and the offence falls within the statutory jurisdiction.

Can an ordinary Magistrate proceed without the Commandant asking him to?

Rule 36E(a) permits this if the Magistrate records reasons for doing so, but Rule 36F then requires written notice to the Commandant and imposes the prescribed 21-day restriction before the listed substantive steps are taken.

How long is the Rule 36F notice period?

Twenty-one days from the date of service of the written notice on the Commandant.

What happens if the ordinary Magistrate delivers the accused to the CRPF authority?

Rule 36H requires the Commandant or Assistant Commandant to inform the Magistrate, as soon as may be, whether the accused has been tried or some other effectual proceeding has been taken or ordered.

What is Rule 36J?

It requires the Commandant, where he considers that the offence should be tried by the ordinary Magistrate, to give written notice to that Magistrate and deliver the accused under proper escort.

Does BNSS affect current Rule 36 proceedings?

Yes. Since BNSS came into force on 1 July 2024, present litigation must identify whether BNSS applies, whether a saved CrPC proceeding continues under Section 531 BNSS, and what contemporary procedural provision corresponds to the historical references in the CRPF Rules.

37. Litigation strategy

In a Chapter VI-A challenge, start with jurisdiction rather than merits. Identify the offence, the accused’s CRPF status, the statutory forum, the officer’s actual empowerment, the Rule 36E route, Rule 36F service and 21-day period, and the custody-transfer record. Only after jurisdiction is established should the challenge move to plea, evidence, conviction, sentence and consequential service action.

Where the same Commandant acted sequentially as prescribed authority, Magistrate and disciplinary authority, plead each decision separately. The legality of one role cannot be assumed from the legality of another.

38. Conclusion

CRPF Rules 36B–36J are a compact jurisdictional code designed to prevent conflict between ordinary criminal courts and CRPF officers invested with magisterial powers. Rule 36B defines the ordinary Magistrate for the chapter; Rules 36C and 36D stand deleted; Rule 36DD regulates language; Rule 36E controls when the ordinary court may proceed; Rule 36F requires written notice and a 21-day pause in the Rule 36E(a) situation; Rules 36G and 36I are deleted; Rule 36H ensures accountability after the accused is handed to CRPF authority; and Rule 36J governs delivery of the accused to the ordinary Magistrate.

The next CRPF article will move to Rules 37–45: Character and Service Roll, internal accounts, pay and allowances, accommodation, pension, superannuation, special pay and officiating pay.