TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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 Special Magistrates appointed under the Ordinance had jurisdiction to try offences under the Defence of India Rules and whether the general or special orders made by the District Magistrate under Section 10 were sufficient; (ii) whether the accused had acquired vested rights to be tried in the ordinary criminal courts before the Ordinance became operative in relation to their cases, so that trials concluded before a proper order under Section 10 would be without jurisdiction; (iii) whether the High Court could interfere by certiorari or under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, despite Section 26 of the Ordinance.
Issue (i): Whether Special Magistrates appointed under the Ordinance had jurisdiction to try offences under the Defence of India Rules and whether the general or special orders made by the District Magistrate under Section 10 were sufficient.
Analysis: The Ordinance created Special Criminal Courts and conferred jurisdiction by appointment under Sections 5 and 10, subject to the limits of the offences and classes of cases specified by the Provincial Government or its delegate. The Court held that the Ordinance was not controlled by the Defence of India Act, 1939, and that offences under the Defence of India Rules could validly be included in the class of cases made triable by Special Magistrates. It further held that the District Magistrate's order of 31 August 1942 was effective in some cases, though defective, but not in every case and not where it amounted to an impermissible double delegation or otherwise failed to specify jurisdiction with sufficient legal certainty.
Conclusion: The jurisdiction of the Special Magistrates was upheld in principle, but in the particular cases where the empowering order was ineffective or the trial concluded before valid jurisdiction existed, the conviction was without jurisdiction and relief was granted.
Issue (ii): Whether the accused had acquired vested rights to be tried in the ordinary criminal courts before the Ordinance became operative in relation to their cases, so that trials concluded before a proper order under Section 10 would be without jurisdiction.
Analysis: The Court held that cognizance is not the same as initiation of judicial proceedings. Vested rights arise only when judicial proceedings have actually commenced against the accused, namely when the Magistrate has taken a step marking the commencement of prosecution against the person as an accused, such as issuing process or taking an equivalent step after forming a decision to proceed. Mere police investigation, remand, or preliminary administrative orders do not create a vested right to trial in the ordinary courts. Where proceedings against the accused commenced after the Ordinance had come into force, no vested right to ordinary procedure arose. But where a Special Magistrate tried and convicted persons before valid jurisdiction was conferred, the proceedings were void.
Conclusion: No vested right to trial in the ordinary courts accrued merely from prior police or preliminary proceedings; however, convictions entered before valid jurisdiction was conferred were void and liable to be set aside.
Issue (iii): Whether the High Court could interfere by certiorari or under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, despite Section 26 of the Ordinance.
Analysis: The Court held that the Patna High Court did not possess an inherent power of certiorari comparable to the Chartered High Courts, and in any event Section 26 of the Ordinance used language wide enough to exclude interference of any kind in respect of proceedings before Special Courts. However, where the Magistrate acted wholly without jurisdiction and the detention was therefore as a convicted prisoner without lawful conviction, the Court could interfere under Section 491 to prevent illegal detention. Section 530 of the Code preserved the rule that proceedings by a Magistrate not empowered by law are void.
Conclusion: Certiorari was not available, but Section 491 relief was available where the conviction was wholly void for want of jurisdiction.
Final Conclusion: The batch of applications was disposed of partly in favour of the petitioners and partly against them: convictions entered by competent Special Magistrates were maintained, while convictions rendered without valid jurisdiction were set aside and the petitioners in those cases were directed to be released or retried according to law.
Ratio Decidendi: Vested rights in criminal procedure arise only when judicial proceedings have actually commenced against the accused, and a conviction by a court lacking lawful jurisdiction is void and may be ignored for the purpose of securing relief against illegal detention despite a statutory bar on interference with valid proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
