2003 (3) TMI 124 - SC - Customs

Supreme Court validates Special Court's jurisdiction in IPC offenses, quashes criminal proceedings, & upholds exoneration in departmental case.

The Supreme Court held that the Special Court (Economic Offences) had jurisdiction to try IPC offences, validated the Magistrate's cognizance without ... Whether if the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports had not been examined as a witness, the procedure prescribed by Section 200 Cr.P.C. had not been followed and, therefore, the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences was illegal? Held that:- It difficult to comprehend the aforesaid reasoning of the High Court. Section 6 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 5 except upon a complaint in writing made by an officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or a special order. That the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports had been so authorised by the Central Government is not in dispute. Proviso (a) to Section 200 Cr.P.C. lays down that if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties has made the complaint in writing, the Magistrate need not to examine the complainant and the witnesses. In view of Twelfth clause of Section 21 IPC which provides that every person in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government shall be a public servant, the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports is a public servant. It is also not the case of the accused-respondents that the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports is not a public servant. The complaint was filed by him in discharge of his official duty. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, fully justified in taking cognizance of the offences without recording the statement of the complainant. The view taken by the High Court is wholly unsustainable in law and must be set aside. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Special Court (Economic Offences) to try offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).2. Examination of the complainant as a witness by the Special Court.3. Application of judicial mind by the Presiding Officer of the Special Court before taking cognizance of the offences.4. Relevance of departmental proceedings and subsequent exoneration of respondents in the context of the criminal trial.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Special Court (Economic Offences) to try offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC):The High Court held that the Special Court (Economic Offences) had no jurisdiction to try offences under the IPC, as it was only empowered to try offences under the Acts mentioned in the Schedule to the notification. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this view, stating that the Special Court, presided over by a Judicial Magistrate First Class, retained its jurisdiction to try offences under the IPC as per Section 26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The Court emphasized that the notification issued under Section 11(1) of the Cr.P.C. did not divest the Judicial Magistrate of his inherent jurisdiction to try IPC offences. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's reasoning was erroneous and that the Special Court (Economic Offences) had the jurisdiction to try the IPC offences alleged against the respondents.2. Examination of the complainant as a witness by the Special Court:The High Court had also held that the procedure prescribed by Section 200 Cr.P.C. was not followed as the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports was not examined as a witness. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 6 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, stipulates that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under Section 5 except upon a complaint in writing made by an authorized officer. Since the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports was a public servant acting in discharge of his official duties, the proviso to Section 200 Cr.P.C. applied, which exempts the need for examining the complainant and witnesses. Therefore, the Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance without recording the complainant's statement.3. Application of judicial mind by the Presiding Officer of the Special Court before taking cognizance of the offences:The High Court criticized the Magistrate's order for not showing that he had perused the complaint or applied his judicial mind before taking cognizance. The Supreme Court countered this by stating that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate only needs to be satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, not for conviction. The Court cited precedents to affirm that a detailed order is not required when issuing summons and that the Magistrate's order 'Cognizance taken. Register the case. Issue summons to the accused.' was adequate and legally sound.4. Relevance of departmental proceedings and subsequent exoneration of respondents in the context of the criminal trial:The respondents argued that since the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 had been repealed and they had been exonerated in departmental proceedings, continuing the criminal trial would be futile. The Supreme Court acknowledged the orders from departmental proceedings favoring the respondents and noted that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal trial. Consequently, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondents.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, holding that the Special Court (Economic Offences) had jurisdiction to try IPC offences, the Magistrate's cognizance was valid without examining the complainant, and that the trial would be futile given the respondents' exoneration in departmental proceedings. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.