Special Judicial Magistrate appointment upheld where jurisdiction and venue were lawfully conferred without violating Article 14.
A statutory power allowing the State Government, in consultation with the High Court, to appoint a Special Judicial Magistrate for a particular case or class of cases was not discriminatory under Article 14. The amended provision validly removed the earlier limitation on functioning in a Presidency town, and the notification appointing the Magistrate was upheld because it did not mandate an impermissible trial venue or create hostile discrimination. The fact that the case involved conduct connected with more than one place, and that different appellate consequences followed from the jurisdiction conferred by law, did not render the arrangement unequal treatment.
Issues: Whether the amended provision empowering the State Government to appoint a Special Judicial Magistrate for a particular case or class of cases, and the notification appointing such Magistrate for the case, violated Article 14 of the Constitution by creating discriminatory treatment or an impermissible trial venue.
Analysis: The amended provision authorised the State Government, in consultation with the High Court, to confer on a qualified person the powers of a Judicial Magistrate in respect of particular cases, classes of cases, or cases generally within a local area. The amendment removed the earlier restriction against functioning in a Presidency town and therefore permitted appointment of a Special Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction over both Greater Bombay and Ratnagiri. The power was not held to be discriminatory merely because it enabled a Special Magistrate to be constituted for a particular case. The notification was also upheld because it did not direct any impermissible venue, and the Code contained no rule compelling a Magistrate to sit at any fixed place. The inconvenience alleged by the petitioners did not establish hostile discrimination, especially since the case involved alleged conspiracy at multiple places including Bombay and the place of substantive importation at Deogad, giving the designated Magistrate territorial connection with both areas. The different appellate route arising from trial before a Presidency Magistrate was treated as a statutory consequence of the jurisdiction validly conferred and not as unequal treatment by the notification.
Conclusion: The amended provision and the notification were valid and did not infringe Article 14.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the special magistrate appointment and the proposed trial arrangement failed, and the petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power enabling the State to appoint a Special Judicial Magistrate for particular cases or local areas is not discriminatory under Article 14 if it is exercised within the framework of the Code and does not impose unequal treatment merely by reason of venue, convenience, or the incident of appellate forum.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
