Special statutory jurisdiction prevails over general criminal procedure, with conviction sustained and imprisonment reduced to a fine.

A special enactment governing a disciplined force prevailed over the general criminal procedure, because section 16(2) contained a non obstante clause and expressly authorised the Commandant or Assistant Commandant to exercise magisterial powers for inquiry or trial of offences under the Act. The Supreme Court therefore upheld the Assistant Commandant's jurisdiction to try and convict the respondent, and held that the statutory conferment could not be invalidated in appellate or revisional proceedings under the Code. On sentence, the Court reduced the punishment for unauthorised absence and substituted a fine for imprisonment while sustaining the finding of guilt.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Assistant Commandant had jurisdiction to try and convict a member of the Force under the special scheme of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, despite the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) Whether the sentence imposed for unauthorised absence required modification.

Issue (i): Whether the Assistant Commandant had jurisdiction to try and convict a member of the Force under the special scheme of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, despite the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The offence was created and punishable under a special enactment governing a disciplined force. Section 16(2) of the Act contains a non obstante clause and authorises the Central Government to invest the Commandant or Assistant Commandant with powers of a Magistrate of any class for inquiry or trial of offences under the Act. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not override the special jurisdiction and special procedure preserved by the Act under its saving framework. A challenge to the validity or vires of the statutory provision could not be decided in appellate or revisional proceedings under the Code, and the special statutory conferment of powers remained effective.

Conclusion: The Assistant Commandant had jurisdiction to try and convict the respondent under the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence imposed for unauthorised absence required modification.

Analysis: The misconduct was treated as an offence in a disciplined force and called for deterrent punishment, but the particular circumstances warranted reduction of the custodial sentence. The statutory maximum permitted punishment included imprisonment or fine, and the ends of justice were met by substituting a fine measured with reference to pay, while maintaining the finding of guilt.

Conclusion: The sentence was modified and the fine was substituted in place of the imprisonment imposed earlier.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was sustained on the basis of the special statutory jurisdiction, but the punishment was reduced to a fine in substitution of imprisonment, so the appeal succeeded only to that limited extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special enactment governing a disciplined force expressly confers magisterial powers and contains a non obstante clause, that special jurisdiction prevails over the general criminal procedure code, and appellate or revisional courts under the Code cannot invalidate the statutory conferment of power.

---