Private complaint before Special Judge upheld where statute allowed cognizance without commitment and no police report was required.

A Special Judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 could take cognizance of offences under section 6(1)(a) and (b) on a private complaint, because section 8(1) authorised cognizance without commitment and did not confine it to a police report. Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was treated as a safeguard against investigation by lower-ranking officers, not as a bar on cognizance by the court. The Special Judge was regarded as a court of original criminal jurisdiction, and the maintainability of the complaint and the jurisdictional objection both failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Special Judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 could take cognizance of offences under section 6(1)(a) and (b) on a private complaint, and whether section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 made a prior investigation by a designated police officer a condition precedent to such cognizance.

Analysis: Section 8(1) conferred on the Special Judge the power to take cognizance of the specified offences without commitment, and the text of the provision did not limit cognizance to cases supported only by a police report. The statutory scheme of criminal procedure recognised complaint, police report and other lawful modes of taking cognizance, and the Act did not expressly exclude a private complaint. Section 5A was construed as a safeguard against investigation by lower-ranking police officers, not as a restriction on the court's power to receive and act upon a complaint. The Court also treated the Special Judge as a court of original criminal jurisdiction, not confined to the procedural slot of either a Magistrate or a Sessions Court except where the statute expressly so provided.

Conclusion: A private complaint was maintainable before the Special Judge, and prior investigation under section 5A was not a condition precedent to cognizance.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the maintainability of the complaint and to the jurisdiction of the Special Judge failed, and the conviction-related objection was rejected on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute empowers a Special Judge to take cognizance of specified offences without commitment and does not expressly confine cognizance to a police report, a private complaint remains maintainable; a statutory safeguard regulating investigation does not, by implication, bar cognizance on complaint.

---