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 the Special Court for Economic Offences established under the notification had jurisdiction to try offences under the Indian Penal Code along with offences under the scheduled enactments; (ii) whether the order taking cognizance was bad for want of application of judicial mind; and (iii) whether the complaints required examination of the complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issue (i): whether the Special Court for Economic Offences established under the notification had jurisdiction to try offences under the Indian Penal Code along with offences under the scheduled enactments
Analysis: The notification establishing the Special Court was issued for the trial of offences only under the Acts specified in its schedule. The Indian Penal Code was not included in that schedule. A court created for specified economic offences cannot assume jurisdiction over offences outside the notification unless the notification itself so provides. The Court distinguished enactments where the legislature had expressly conferred power on special courts to try other offences also, and held that no such enlargement existed here.
Conclusion: The Special Court had no jurisdiction to try offences under the Indian Penal Code or any other law not covered by the notification.
Issue (ii): whether the order taking cognizance was bad for want of application of judicial mind
Analysis: Taking cognizance is a judicial act and requires application of mind to the complaint before process is issued. The order merely recorded that cognizance was taken and summons were to be issued, without showing that the complaint was perused or indicating which offence had been taken cognizance of. The order therefore did not disclose the necessary judicial consideration.
Conclusion: The order taking cognizance was defective for lack of visible application of judicial mind.
Issue (iii): whether the complaints required examination of the complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Analysis: The complainant was authorised to lodge complaints only in respect of the offence under the Imports and Exports Act. That authority did not extend to offences under the Indian Penal Code. In relation to the Indian Penal Code allegations, he could not be treated as a complainant acting in discharge of official duties so as to dispense with the normal procedure of examination under Section 200.
Conclusion: Examination under Section 200 was necessary for the Indian Penal Code allegations, and the absence of such procedure supported discharge.
Final Conclusion: The proceedings could not be sustained, the discharge applications were allowed, and the accused were discharged.
Ratio Decidendi: A special court created by notification can exercise only the jurisdiction expressly conferred by that notification, and cognizance must reflect application of judicial mind before process is issued.
TaxTMI 
