TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a Special Court constituted under the Act, being a Court of Session, could take cognizance of the offence directly without committal by a Magistrate under the Code. (ii) Whether the long lapse of time justified termination of the proceedings without further course being taken before the competent court.
Issue (i): Whether a Special Court constituted under the Act, being a Court of Session, could take cognizance of the offence directly without committal by a Magistrate under the Code.
Analysis: Section 193 of the Code bars a Court of Session from taking cognizance as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed by a Magistrate, unless the Code or another law expressly provides otherwise. The Special Court under the Act is a Court of Session specified for speedy trial and retains that character. The Act contains no express or implied provision authorising direct cognizance by the Special Court. In the absence of a contrary statutory mandate, the general scheme of the Code applies, and the special court must receive the case through committal.
Conclusion: The Special Court could not take cognizance directly without committal, and the proceedings before it suffered from a jurisdictional defect. The issue is decided in favour of the appellants.
Issue (ii): Whether the long lapse of time justified termination of the proceedings without further course being taken before the competent court.
Analysis: The court declined to direct closure on this ground. It held that the competent court must decide the next step in accordance with law after hearing both sides, including any plea for discharge under the Code. No premature direction could be issued on the course to be adopted by that court.
Conclusion: The plea based on delay was rejected. The issue is decided against the appellants.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded on the jurisdictional objection, while the prayer to end the matter because of delay was refused. The matter was left to proceed before the competent court in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: A Court of Session specified as a Special Court under a special enactment remains subject to Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and cannot take cognizance as a court of original jurisdiction unless the special enactment expressly authorises direct cognizance or the case is committed by a Magistrate.
TaxTMI 
