1962 (11) TMI 71 - SC - Indian Laws

Special Judge's Jurisdiction Affirmed Based on State Order & Record Receipt

The court affirmed that the Special Judge had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense based on the order of allotment by the State Government and ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Special Judge to take cognizance of an offense without compliance with Section 190(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Interpretation of Sections 4 and 5 of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949.3. Effect of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) (Amending) Act, 1960 on pending proceedings.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Special Judge to take cognizance of an offense without compliance with Section 190(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code:The main question addressed was whether the Special Judge could take cognizance of an offense without following the procedure prescribed by Section 190(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court clarified that Section 190(1) applies only to certain classes of magistrates and does not extend to Special Judges appointed under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949. The court emphasized that the Special Judge is not within the class of magistrates designated by Section 190(1) and thus, the requirements of this section do not apply to him. The court further explained that the Special Judge's jurisdiction arises from the allotment of the case by the State Government under Section 4(2) of the Act, and not from the procedures outlined in Section 190(1).2. Interpretation of Sections 4 and 5 of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949:The court analyzed Sections 4 and 5 of the Act to determine their implications on the jurisdiction and procedures of the Special Courts. Section 4(1) states that offenses specified in the Schedule are triable only by Special Courts, and Section 4(2) allows the State Government to distribute cases among Special Courts. Section 5(1) permits a Special Court to take cognizance of offenses without the accused being committed for trial and to follow the procedure prescribed for warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report. The court noted that the Special Court is deemed to be a Court of Session, and the order of allotment under Section 4(2) substitutes the need for a committal order under Section 193(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court concluded that the Special Judge's jurisdiction to proceed with the trial is vested by the order of allotment and the receipt of the record from the Government.3. Effect of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) (Amending) Act, 1960 on pending proceedings:The court addressed the applicability of the 1960 amendment to pending proceedings. The amendment introduced changes to Section 5, allowing Special Courts to take cognizance of offenses in the manner laid down in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 190(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court observed that the amendment, being procedural, could apply to pending proceedings but did not invalidate proceedings already taken in the absence of a specific provision to that effect. The court held that the validity of the proceedings before the Special Judge was governed by the Act as it stood before the amendment. The court rejected the argument that the amendment was declaratory and intended to apply retrospectively, emphasizing that the amendment sought to change the law rather than declare it.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Special Judge had the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense based on the order of allotment by the State Government and the receipt of the record. The court clarified that the Special Judge's jurisdiction did not depend on compliance with Section 190(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and that the 1960 amendment did not affect the validity of proceedings commenced under the original Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the lower court was upheld.