TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Special Judge can authorize police custody detention under Criminal Law Act, 1952, Supreme Court rules</h1> <h3>State of Tamil Nadu Versus V. Krishnaswami Naidu and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court held that the Special Judge under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952, can exercise the powers of a Magistrate under Section 167 of ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the Special Judge under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 can exercise the power conferred on a Magistrate under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code to authorize detention of the accused in police custody.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Authority of Special Judge under Section 167 of CrPC:The primary issue in this appeal is whether a Special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 can exercise the powers of a Magistrate under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to authorize the detention of the accused in police custody. The case arose from an order of the Madras High Court, which held that the Special Judge does not have such authority.2. Background and Context:The respondents were arrested for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act and produced before the Special Judge, who refused to commit them to police custody. The police then sought a directive from the High Court, which ruled that the Special Judge is not a Magistrate under the CrPC and thus cannot exercise the powers under Section 167.3. Examination of Relevant Provisions:The court examined the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1952 and the CrPC. The Amendment Act was designed to provide a more speedy trial of certain offenses by appointing Special Judges. Section 6 of the Act allows the State Government to appoint Special Judges, who must be or have been Sessions Judges, Additional Sessions Judges, or Assistant Sessions Judges. Section 7 confers exclusive jurisdiction on these Special Judges to try offenses specified in Section 6. Section 8 empowers the Special Judge to take cognizance of offenses without the accused being committed for trial and to follow the procedure for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates.4. Special Judge's Jurisdiction and Powers:The court noted that while the Special Judge is not a Sessions Judge in the traditional sense, he is empowered to take cognizance of offenses without committal and to follow the procedure for warrant cases by Magistrates. Section 8(3) of the Amendment Act deems the Special Judge to be a Court of Sessions for certain purposes and a Magistrate for others, specifically making Sections 350 and 549 of the CrPC applicable to him.5. Applicability of CrPC Provisions:The court emphasized that the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act is not a complete code and does not exclude the provisions of the CrPC unless they are inconsistent with it. Therefore, the CrPC provisions should be considered in force unless there is a conflict. The court reasoned that excluding the Special Judge from the definition of a Magistrate under Section 167 would lead to an anomalous situation where the Special Judge could not remand an accused or release him on bail, thus hindering the investigation process.6. Interpretation of 'Magistrate' in Section 167:The court examined Section 167 of the CrPC, which allows a Magistrate to authorize the detention of an accused if the investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours. The court concluded that the term 'Magistrate having jurisdiction' should include the Special Judge, as excluding him would disrupt the legal process. The General Clauses Act defines a Magistrate as including every person exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the CrPC, supporting the inclusion of the Special Judge within this definition.7. Distinction from Previous Case Law:The court addressed the High Court's reliance on a previous Supreme Court decision (Major E.G. Basudev v. State of Bombay), which held that a Special Judge is not a Magistrate under Rule 3 of Section 549 of the CrPC. The court clarified that this decision was specific to Rule 3, which involves committal proceedings not applicable to the Special Judge. Therefore, the reasoning in that case does not apply to Section 167 of the CrPC.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the Special Judge under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952, is indeed a Magistrate empowered to authorize detention under Section 167 of the CrPC. The appeal was allowed, and the order of the High Court was set aside, affirming the authority of the Special Judge to exercise these powers.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
