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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to grant bail or anticipatory bail in respect of an offence triable by the Special Judge for Economic Offences, and whether the Special Judge had exclusive jurisdiction over such applications.
Analysis: The Special Court for Economic Offences was constituted for the whole State of Andhra Pradesh by notification under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with statewide local jurisdiction to try specified economic offences, including offences under the Customs Act, 1962. Reading the notification with the provisions governing special courts and local jurisdiction, the ordinary jurisdiction of the Sessions Court was held to be impliedly excluded in relation to such cases. Since the Special Judge was the court specially empowered to try the offence, it alone was competent to consider bail applications arising out of that prosecution.
Conclusion: The Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to grant bail or anticipatory bail in the matter, and the Special Judge for Economic Offences alone had jurisdiction to decide such applications.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the bail orders succeeded, and jurisdiction was held to lie exclusively with the Special Judge for Economic Offences.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special court is constituted with statewide jurisdiction to try specified offences, the ordinary jurisdiction of the Sessions Court to entertain bail applications in those cases stands impliedly excluded.