TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether section 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in empowering the Government to appoint a Special Magistrate for a particular case, violates article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the power under section 197(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to specify the court for trial excludes or overrides the power under section 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to appoint a Special Magistrate.
Issue (i): Whether section 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in empowering the Government to appoint a Special Magistrate for a particular case, violates article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The impugned provision was examined in the setting of a trial to be conducted under the ordinary criminal procedure. The mere vesting of discretion in the Government to appoint a Magistrate for a particular case was held not to create discrimination where the accused are not subjected to a special or materially different procedure. The vice of unequal treatment arises only where similarly placed persons are exposed to a different and prejudicial procedure; that feature was absent here.
Conclusion: Section 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not offend article 14 of the Constitution of India on the facts presented.
Issue (ii): Whether the power under section 197(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to specify the court for trial excludes or overrides the power under section 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to appoint a Special Magistrate.
Analysis: The power under section 197(2) concerns specification of the court, while section 14 concerns appointment of the person who is to function as Magistrate. These powers were treated as distinct in subject-matter and operation. The non-exercise of the power to specify a court does not create an implication that no Special Magistrate can be appointed under section 14, and even where a court is specified, the question of the person to preside over it remains separate.
Conclusion: The power under section 197(2) does not exclude the exercise of the power under section 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Final Conclusion: The constitutional and statutory objections that were substantively decided failed, and the petition stood dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory discretion is not discriminatory merely because it permits appointment of a Special Magistrate for a particular case where the trial proceeds under the normal procedure, and the power to specify the court of trial is distinct from the power to appoint the judicial officer who is to try the case.
TaxTMI 
