Quashed special court allotment revives original jurisdiction; later transfer of the same pending case is barred by section 12.

Quashing of an allotment to a Special Judge was treated as rendering that allotment non est, with the result that the original court's jurisdiction revived and the proceedings remained pending before the Chief Presidency Magistrate on the relevant commencement date. On that footing, the statutory bar under section 12 applied to prevent transfer of a pending matter to the Special Judge. A later allotment and fresh charge-sheet relating to the same occurrence, accused, and substantially the same offences could not create a new proceeding in substance and would amount to an evasion of the bar. The special court allotment was therefore invalid for that purpose.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the quashing of the allotment to the Special Judge restored the proceedings before the Chief Presidency Magistrate so as to make them pending on the commencement date of the amending law and attract the bar under section 12; (ii) Whether a later allotment and fresh charge-sheet in respect of the same offences against the same accused could validly be made to the Special Judge notwithstanding section 12.

Issue (i): Whether the quashing of the allotment to the Special Judge restored the proceedings before the Chief Presidency Magistrate so as to make them pending on the commencement date of the amending law and attract the bar under section 12.

Analysis: The earlier allotment to the Special Judge having been held unconstitutional, it was treated as non est. The effect of setting aside that allotment was to revive the original position, namely that the Chief Presidency Magistrate retained the proceedings after taking cognizance. The subsequent ministerial direction by the Magistrate to send the record to the Special Judge could not alter that legal position. On that footing, the proceedings were pending before the ordinary court on the commencement date and section 12 was attracted.

Conclusion: Yes. The proceedings stood revived before the Chief Presidency Magistrate and were pending on the relevant date.

Issue (ii): Whether a later allotment and fresh charge-sheet in respect of the same offences against the same accused could validly be made to the Special Judge notwithstanding section 12.

Analysis: Section 12 was construed as forbidding allotment of any proceeding that was already pending in the ordinary court on the commencement date. A later allotment of the same case, involving the same occurrence, the same accused, and substantially the same offences, would defeat the protection intended by section 12 and amount to a plain evasion of the statutory bar. Different allotment numbers or later dates did not create a new proceeding in substance.

Conclusion: No. The later allotment and charge-sheet were hit by section 12.

Final Conclusion: The Special Court was held to have no legal bar to proceed on the footing urged by the State's appeal, and the High Court's contrary order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: When an allotment to a special court is quashed as invalid, the original court's jurisdiction revives, and a later allotment of the same pending proceeding involving the same offence and accused cannot be used to evade a statutory bar against transferring pending matters.

---