TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a Special Judge under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 needed a petition of complaint for taking cognizance, or could take cognizance upon receipt of the Government notification of distribution and the Magistrate's record by applying judicial mind to the facts of the case; (ii) whether the earlier Division Bench decisions requiring a complaint alone were correctly decided.
Issue (i): Whether a Special Judge under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 needed a petition of complaint for taking cognizance, or could take cognizance upon receipt of the Government notification of distribution and the Magistrate's record by applying judicial mind to the facts of the case
Analysis: The Act created a special forum with a special procedure. Section 4(2) provided for distribution of cases by the State Government, while Section 5(1) expressly empowered the Special Court to take cognizance without commitment and required it to follow the warrant-case procedure so far as consistent with the Act. The statutory scheme, read with the concept of cognizance as explained in the criminal law authorities, showed that cognizance was a judicial act involving application of mind to the case for the purpose of proceeding under the Act. The majority held that the Special Court was not confined to the modes in Section 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that the Government order of distribution together with the records of the Magistrate could furnish sufficient material for cognizance. The later amendment inserting the Section 190(1)(a) and (b) modes was treated as a change in procedure and not as affecting the earlier position.
Conclusion: The Special Court did not need a petition of complaint and could take cognizance on the Government order of distribution and the case records by applying its mind to the facts; this was held in favour of the respondent.
Issue (ii): whether the earlier Division Bench decisions requiring a complaint alone were correctly decided
Analysis: The majority held that the earlier view limiting cognizance to a complaint was inconsistent with the special statutory scheme and with the nature of the Special Court's jurisdiction. The order of distribution was not a substitute for cognizance, but it could validly support cognizance when read with the record and the Court's judicial consideration of the case. The 1960 amendment did not alter the answer for pending matters already dealt with under the earlier law.
Conclusion: The earlier Division Bench decisions were wrongly decided.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that a Special Court under the Act could take cognizance without a petition of complaint, and the contrary earlier view was overruled by the majority.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute creates a Special Court, authorises distribution of cases by the State Government, and permits cognizance without commitment, the Court may take cognizance on the materials accompanying the distribution order and the record, provided it applies its judicial mind to proceed under the Act; it is not confined to the cognizance modes applicable to ordinary Magistrates under Section 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
Dissenting Opinion: Dwijendra Nath Das Gupta, J. held that the order of distribution by itself did not contain sufficient material for cognizance and that the Special Court needed either a petition of complaint or a report in writing by a police officer made after investigation.
TaxTMI 
