Section 138 complaint transfers to Sessions Court held impermissible where special statute confines trial to Magistracy and safeguards differ.

Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remained triable only by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate First Class, because the special statute displaced general transfer powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 could not enlarge jurisdiction to the Court of Session. The selective transfer of only complaints filed up to a specified date created unequal classes of accused, altered appellate and revisional safeguards, and was held to offend Articles 14 and 21. The transfer order was therefore set aside, and the matters were directed back to the Magistrate for trial in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be transferred from the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate First Class to the Court of Session by invoking the High Court's supervisory or transfer jurisdiction. (ii) Whether such transfer, applied only to complaints filed up to a specified date, was discriminatory and inconsistent with the accused's procedural safeguards and right to speedy trial.

Issue (i): Whether complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be transferred from the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate First Class to the Court of Session by invoking the High Court's supervisory or transfer jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 142(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 expressly provides that no court inferior to a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of First Class shall try an offence under Section 138. The scheme of Sections 138, 142 and 143 shows that such prosecutions are summons cases triable by the specified Magistrate and not by the Court of Session. The special statute therefore overrides the general transfer provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the High Court's powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be used to enlarge jurisdiction beyond what the special enactment permits.

Conclusion: The transfer of Section 138 complaints to the Court of Session was impermissible and the challenge on jurisdiction succeeded in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether such transfer, applied only to complaints filed up to a specified date, was discriminatory and inconsistent with the accused's procedural safeguards and right to speedy trial.

Analysis: The selective transfer created two classes of accused facing the same offence, with different forums of trial and different appellate consequences. The Court held that speedier disposal by itself is not a valid basis for classification and that the procedure adopted also deprived the affected accused of the ordinary appellate and revisional safeguards available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Such curtailment of procedural protection was held to offend Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The impugned transfer order was discriminatory and unconstitutional, and this issue was decided in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The special statutory forum under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 remained confined to the Magistracy, and the administrative transfer of pending complaints to the Court of Session could not be sustained. The order was set aside and the matters were directed to return to the Magistrate for trial in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute confers trial jurisdiction on a specified court, that jurisdiction cannot be expanded by invoking general transfer or supervisory powers, and a selective shift of forum that alters procedural safeguards and creates unequal treatment is unconstitutional.

---