TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 288
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....019 COMMON ORDER This common order will dispose of these four 'criminal original petitions' (hereinafter 'Crl.O.Ps' in plural and 'Crl.O.P' in singular for the sake of brevity) and all 'criminal miscellaneous petitions' therein. 2. Crl.O.P.Nos.22136 of 2019, 22137 of 2019, 1526 of 2020 and 1527 of 2020 shall be referred to as 'first Crl.O.P', 'second Crl.O.P', 'third Crl.O.P' and 'fourth Crl.O.P' respectively (wherever necessary and deemed appropriate) for the sake of convenience and clarity. There is no disputation or disagreement before this Court that there is no office and obviously no incumbent with regard to second respondent in first and second Crl.O.Ps. In other words, this court is informed without any disputation or disagreement that second respondent in first and second Crl.O.Ps has been wrongly described and that in any event, presence of any alternative respondents is not necessary. In view of this undisputed position, second respondent in first and second Crl.O.Ps stands deleted. 3. Central theme to these four Crl.O.Ps is prayers for quashing and assailing transfer of two criminal complaints being E.O.C.Nos.266 and 267 of 2018 originally on the file of Add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... second criminal complaint, he has been arrayed as accused along with his spouse. While first criminal complaint pertains to 'Assessment Year' (hereinafter 'AY' for brevity) 2014-15, the relevant accounting year being accounting year ending 31.03.2015, the second criminal complaint pertains to AY 2015-16. 7. All the learned senior counsel and counsel for all parties before this court made a common request that all four Crl.O.Ps may please be heard out together. It has become necessary to mention this as consideration of first Crl.O.P / second Crl.O.P may become unnecessary if prayers in third and fourth Crl.O.Ps are acceded to. However, if prayers in third Crl.O.P / fourth Crl.O.P are not acceded to, it will thereafter become necessary to hear out first and second Crl.O.Ps. Therefore, this common request was acceded to, all four Crl.O.Ps were heard out together and this common order is being made. 8. Short facts shorn of details and particulars not imperative for appreciating this order are that the petitioners in instant four Crl.O.Ps who are assessees under the IT Act, filed their returns for the aforesaid two AYs, returns filed included income received by petitioners by wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....G.O.Ms.No.1423 dated 06.09.2018. 10. Thereafter one of the petitioners (Mr.Karti P.Chidambaram) in these four Crl.O.Ps before this Court contested Parliamentary elections in the general election to 17th Lok Sabha held in May 2019 and was elected as a Member of Parliament from Sivaganga Parliamentary Constituency. To be noted, he was declared elected on 24.05.2019 and this Court is informed that he took oath as Member of Parliament in Lok Sabha on 18.6.2019. In the interregnum, the Registrar General of this Court issued two Office Memoranda both dated 07.06.2019 (both bearing same reference being Roc No.5745/2018/G4) followed by a letter to the Principal Judge of City Civil Court, Chennai being letter dated 09.07.2019 and a combined reading of contents of these memoranda and letter suggest that they pertain to transfer inter-alia of said criminal complaints from EO Court to designated court for trying offences against M.Ps/M.L.As. This led to first and second Crl.O.Ps being filed in August of 2019 (by petitioners) assailing such transfer inter-alia on the grounds that transferee court does not have original jurisdiction, that only one of the petitioners has become M.P, that he wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd. If quash prayers are acceded to, it will not be necessary to examine the Crl. O.Ps assailing transfer of said criminal complaints. Axiomatically, if quash prayers are negatived, it will become necessary to examine Crl. O.Ps assailing transfer and returning a verdict on the same. 12. Mr.K.T.S.Tulsi and Mr.Amit Desai, learned Senior counsel instructed by counsel on record for petitioners made submissions in third and fourth Crl.O.Ps., summation of which is fourfold and the same is as follows : (a) If Returns in response to notice under Section 148 of IT Act are treated as Returns under Section 139, then the original Returns cease to exist and consequently, said criminal complaints have to be quashed; (b) Absent at least one Assessment Order, there can be no prosecution. In the instant case, even first assessment order has not been made and criminal complaints were launched on 12.09.2018 even before the reasons for issuing section 148 notices were disclosed; (c) The entire prosecution is pivoted on statements given by third parties qua petitioners, i.e., Managing Director and Cashier of purchaser company and this is impermissible; (d) Complai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or provisions, if any, thereof, specified in the Schedule; or (ii) any other offence, which under the provisions of that Code, may be tried along with such offence, and every offence referred to in clause (i) or in clause (ii) may be taken cognizance of by the Court having jurisdiction as if the provisions of that Chapter were not enacted.' Schedule : THE SCHEDULE (See section 2) 1.The Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922). [1A. Clause (a) of section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957).] 2.The Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961). [2A. The Interest-tax Act, 1974 (45 of 1974).] [2B. The Hotel-Receipts Tax Act, 1980 (54 of 1980).] [2C. The Expenditure-tax Act, 1987 (35 of 1987).] 3. The Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (7 of 1964). 4. The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). 5. The Gift-Tax Act, 1958 (18 of 1958). 6. The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (74 of 1956). 7. The Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1994). [7A. Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994).] 8. The Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5.7.2018 in the purchaser company which purchased land from petitioners and recovered about 163 small notebooks. To be noted, the original survey was under section 133A of IT Act and further Enforcement Directorate shared soft copies seized from the aforementioned company. Search and seizure in the purchaser company was done under section 132 of IT Act and 163 small note books were recovered. According to learned Prosecutors for IT Department, entries in the soft copies recovered by the Enforcement Directorate from the office of the aforementioned company (shared with IT Department) and the note books recovered from the purchaser company read in juxtaposition with the statement given by the Managing Director and Cashier of the purchaser company, corroborate each other, establish that petitioners received a part of sale consideration by cash and suppressed the same in the Returns for evasion of tax, besides filing false Returns. This is the crux and gravamen of stated position of prosecution. Whether the recovered material corroborate each other and whether it establishes guilt on the part of accused are all clearly matters for trial. Senior counsel for petitioners submits on instru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom P.Jayappan Vs. S.K.Perumal, First Income-Tax Officer, Tuticorin reported in 1984 (Supp) SCC 437 were read out to this Court. Owing to the stated position of the learned Prosecutors for IT Department that complaints are not based on assessment/s and that they are based on search / seizure, this Court deems it appropriate to not to discuss the same in great length, as it is a case of avoidable prolixity, which if not avoided will only make this order needlessly verbose. 23. This leaves us with the point regarding prosecution being launched on the basis of statement of third parties (third point in summation supra). Discussion supra regarding alleged corroboration between soft copies recovered from the company in which one of the petitioners is the Director (shared by Enforcement Directorate with IT Department) and small note books in the purchaser company becomes relevant in this regard. The third point raised by petitioners gets neutralized by stated position of prosecution that there is corroboration between soft copies seized from company in which one of the petitioners is a Director and purchaser. Besides being a matter for trial, it puts to rest the ground that prosecutio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng of said criminal complaints in aforementioned EO Court, both petitioners were neither M.P./M.L.A. nor former M.P./M.L.A. (d) In the case on hand, said criminal complaints entail maximum punishment of seven years and therefore, they are magisterial offences. (e) If said criminal complaints are tried by Economic Offence court-II, i.e., EO Court in which they were filed and if they are disposed of by said court, an appeal against conviction (if that be so) will lie to Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai under section 374(3) of Cr.P.C. If offences are tried by the transferee court, i.e., Special Court for trial of Criminal Cases related to elected M.Ps/M.L.As. of Tamil Nadu and if it is disposed of by that court, an appeal will lie to this court (High Court) under section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. (f) In the light of the aforesaid two points, post disposal of appeal by Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, a revision will lie to this court under section 397 Cr.P.C., but that will obviously not be available if said criminal complaints are tried and disposed of by transferee court and an appeal is decided by this court in an appeal under sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....between 19.9.2018 and 8.7.2019, said criminal complaints were transferred to transferee court. With regard to the date of transfer as mentioned elsewhere (supra in this order), a combined reading of two memoranda of fourth respondent (both dated 07.06.2019 and both bearing same reference being Roc No.5745/2018/G4) and a letter from fourth respondent to Principal Judge of City Civil Court, Chennai suggest that they pertain inter-alia to transfer of said criminal complaints to designated court for trying offences against M.Ps/M.L.As., but it does not give the date of transfer with exactitude and specificity. This was put to learned counsel for 4th respondent. Learned counsel for 4th respondent after taking instructions, adverted to communications dated 10.7.2019 in Dis.No.174/2019 and Dis.No.173/2019 from the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Chennai inter-alia to petitioners and submitted that the actual date of transfer is 10.7.2019. Therefore, from hereon, this order will proceed on the basis that the date of transfer of said criminal complaints from EO Court to transferee court is 10.7.2019. (k) After transferring said criminal complaints which f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se qua Cr.P.C., i.e., that it is notwithstanding anything contained in Cr.P.C. (d) Section 292 of IT Act captioned 'Cognizance of offences' (to be noted, this is outside of Chapters XXI and XXII referred to supra) refers to offences under IT Act in general which reads as follows: '292. Cognizance of offences.-No court inferior to that of a presidency magistrate or a magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act.' (e) A perusal of section 292 of IT Act makes it clear that all offences under IT Act including alleged offences under three provisions of law qua said criminal complaints shall not be tried by a court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate / Magistrate of the First Class Court which can now be read as Magistrate, as this court is informed without any disputation that the distinction between Magistrates of First and Second Classes have since been done away with. (f) 'Court of Session' is defined, described and explained including jurisdiction in section 9 of Cr.P.C. Likewise, 'Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates' is defined, described and explained including jurisdiction in section 16 of Cr.P.C. Sections 9 and 16 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... every Metropolitan Magistrate shall extend throughout the metropolitan area.' (g) As far as said criminal complaints, which we are concerned with in the cases on hand, they fall under the category of offences under 'other laws'. This takes us to section 4, more particularly sub-section (2) of section 4 of Cr.P.C. This court deems it appropriate to reproduce entire section 4 of Cr.P.C which reads as follows: '4.Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws.-(1)All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained. (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.' (h) While perusing sub section (2) of section 4 of Cr.P.C., one has to bear in mind that the terms 'investigation' and 'inquiry' occurring therein have been defined in sections 2(h) and 2(g) respec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....class or group of cases, as the case may be, in which the offence has been committed: Provided that a court competent to try offences under section 292,- (i) which has been designated as a Special Court under this section, shall continue to try the offences before it or offences arising under this Act after such designation; (ii) which has not been designated as a Special Court may continue to try such offence pending before it till its disposal; (b) a Special Court may, upon a complaint made by an authority authorised in this behalf under this Act take cognizance of the offence for which the accused is committed for trial.' (Underlining and double underlining made by me to supply emphasis and highlight) (k) There is no disputation or disagreement before this Court that the Central Government in consultation with Chief Justice of this Court has not notified and designated any one or more of Magisterial level Special Courts within the meaning of Section 280A of IT Act as far as Tamil Nadu is concerned. To be noted, this court is informed by learned Prosecutors on instructions albeit without any disagreement / disputation by petitioners th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., in every State, the following classes of Criminal Courts, namely:-- (i) Courts of Session; (ii) Judicial Magistrates of the first class and, in any metropolitan area, Metropolitan Magistrates; (iii) Judicial Magistrates of the second class; and (iv) Executive Magistrates.' (m) Having had a close look at the classes of Courts and also having noticed that Special Court within the meaning of IT Act has not been designated, one has to examine by which court, said criminal complaints are triable. For this, section 26 of Cr.P.C becomes relevant and the same reads as follows: '26. Courts by which offences are triable.-Subject to the other provisions of this Code,- (a) any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be tried by- (i) the High Court, or (ii) the Court of Session, or (iii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be triable: Provided that any offence under section 376, section 376-A, section 376-AB, section 376-B, section 376-C, section 376-D, section 376-DA, 376-DB or section 376-E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)] shall be tried a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), 277 of IT Act and said provisions read with section 278 of IT Act, the maximum punishment is seven years, owing to which they are magisterial offences and therefore, transfer of said criminal complaints to a Sessions Court is bad in law; (b) Impugned transfer deprives petitioners the possibility of seeking revision in this court (High Court) under section 397 of Cr.P.C., if the need arises depending on the trajectory of said criminal complaints. (c) The transferee court being Court of Sessions lacks jurisdiction as there is no committal. Absent committal, Sessions court, i.e., transferee court cannot hear the said criminal complaints as transferee court does not have original jurisdiction. (d) EO Court, i.e., Economic Offence court-II, Egmore in which complaints were originally filed is a Special Court within the meaning of section 280A of IT Act, the alleged offences under sections 276C(1), 277 of IT Act and said provisions read with section 278 of IT Act are triable by such a Special Court and therefore, the transfer is bad. To be noted, counsel for petitioners referring to aforementioned G.O.Ms.No.1293 dated 24.05.1982 submitted that this should be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levant to the bone of contention, i.e., challenge to transfer have been set out as broad summations supra for the sake of clarity and specificity. 31. For the purpose of discussion on rival submissions and for the purpose of setting out and articulating dispositive reasoning, this court deems it pertinent to extract and reproduce relevant portions of four orders of Hon'ble Supreme court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay case which are pivotal and significant qua transfer (being relevant portions of orders dated 01.11.2017, 14.12.2017, 04.12.2018 and 25.03.2019), which read as follows : 'Relevant portion of order dated 01.11.2017 : 4.Insofar as setting up of Special Courts are concerned, setting up of Special Courts and infrastructure would be dependent on the availability of finances with the States. Without going into the controversy raised on the aforesaid score, the problem can be resolved by having a Central Scheme for setting up of Courts exclusively to deal with criminal cases involving political persons on the lines of the Fast Track Courts which were set up by the Central Government for a period of five (05) years and extended further which Scheme has now been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rticularly, in accordance with the aforementioned orders. To be noted, besides aforementioned orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is one more order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay case being order dated 21.08.2018 which is of significance and relevant portion of the same reads as follows: 'We would like the Union of India to lay before the Court the following information: 1. Number of Special Courts set up pursuant to the order of this Court dated 14th December, 2017; 2. Whether the courts set up are Courts of Sessions or Magisterial Courts; 3. The territorial jurisdiction of each of these Courts; 4. Number of cases pending before each of these Courts, with break-up of Magisterial and Sessions triable cases; 5. Whether the Union of India intends to set up additional number of Courts over and above the Courts that may have already been set up pursuant to the order of this Court dated 14th December, 2017. The details in this regard may also be furnished.' 33. Directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay case, including aforementioned directions, sequence of letters, proceedings issued by f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n this regard, it may be necessary to have a birds eye view of aforementioned xxv proceedings, letters, orders, etc., upto which there is no difficulty. 35. Vide 01.11.2017 order, Hon'ble Supreme Court directed a central scheme on the line of fast track courts for five years, which was extended and thereafter, discontinued. Such a central scheme was proposed for fast tracking cases involving former and present M.Ps/M.L.As and directives in this regard were given. Thereafter, vide 14.12.2017 order, Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed the position that all data are yet to be collected, but plans and financial sanction for 12 courts (pan India) have been put in place. 36. Thereafter, the Law Secretary of Union of India appears to have written a letter dated 16.01.2018 inter-alia to fourth respondent, but the same or copy of the same has not been placed before this Court. However, in proceedings of fourth respondent dated 21.02.2018 (cited as Sl.No.(iv) supra), this 16.01.2018 letter from the Law Secretary has been cited as No.1 in reference and the 21.02.2018 proceedings say that the same have been made by 4th respondent inter-alia pursuant to this letter. Be that as it may, vide 21.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h respondent on the same day, i.e., 14.9.2018. Fourth respondent wrote to third respondent saying that in G.O.Ms.No.697, it has been mentioned that the special court is in the cadre of Sessions Judge, but that has not been included in the notification vide G.O.Ms.No.1423 and made a request that the expression 'in the cadre of Sessions Judge at Chennai' shall be included in the notification. Pursuant to this letter, third respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.1568 dated 17.9.2018 (Sl.No.11) including the aforesaid expression in the notification vide G.O.Ms.No.1423. This was followed by 19.9.2018 proceedings / communication written by fourth respondent to all Principal District Judges in the Sessions Districts of Tamil Nadu saying that inauguration of sole special court in Chennai for trying criminal offences involving sitting / former M.Ps./M.L.As is scheduled to be held on 20.09.2018 and vide this letter, fourth respondent requested all Principal District Judges to transmit the records to this special Court. 39. Thereafter, the most important and crucial order came to be passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and this order is dated 04.12.2018, which has been extracted and reproduced supra. In a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stood modified to the effect that the Special Court in Chennai is not for entire Tamil Nadu, but only for Chennai. On the same day, i.e., on 26.04.2019, one more Government order being G.O.Ms.No.213 came to be made and this is all too critical / crucial for the cases on hand. Vide this G.O.Ms.No.213, one Metropolitan magistrate in Chennai and 31 Judicial Magistrates in 31 Judicial Districts came to be notified as designated Special courts for trying magisterial offences involving former and sitting M.Ps/ M.L.As. To be noted, II Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai was designated for this purpose as far as Chennai District is concerned and it is further to be noted that we are concerned with Chennai District as said criminal complaints are in Chennai District. 41. Thereafter, two proceedings both dated 7.6.2019 (xxii and xxiii supra) came to be made by fourth respondent followed by a letter 9.7.2019 (xxiv supra) and another proceedings dated 17.7.2019 (xxv supra). Sum totality of these proceedings and letter are to the effect that these designated courts were directed to draw up calendars for day today trial, besides directing Principal Judges and Chief Judicial /Metropolitan Magist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nated in all the 32 judicial districts in Tamil Nadu, both at Sessions and Magisterial levels (to be noted, Judicial Magistrate in other Districts and Metropolitan Magistrate in the city of Chennai). 44. In the considered view of this Court, last two events post impugned transfer and after aforementioned point present some difficulties. Those two proceedings are Roc No.5745/2018/G4, dated 6.9.2019 being letter from fourth respondent to third respondent, the third respondent acting on the same and making Government Order being G.O.Ms.No.535 on 11.10.2019 regarding non designating II Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, which was the lone Special Court at Magisterial level for Chennai District. Owing to this 6.9.2019 proceedings of fourth respondent and consequential 11.10.2019 Government Order of third respondent being crucial and critical qua bone of contention in instant cases (first and second Crl.O.Ps), this Court deems it appropriate to scan and reproduce the same. Scanned reproduction is as follows : Proceedings of 4th respondent dated 06.09.2019 : G.O.Ms.No.535, dated 11.10.2019 : 45. When there are directions with specificity from Hon'ble Supreme Court to const....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....important aspect of the matter. That is, on the date of actual transfer, i.e., 10.07.2019, vide Dis.No.174/2019 and Dis.No.173/2019 by the office of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai, i.e., EO Court, II Metropolitan Magistrate in Chennai was very much available as a designated court for trying the offences involving past and present M.Ps / M.L.As. To put it differently, designation of II Metropolitan Magistrate vide G.O. Ms.No.213, dated 26.04.2019 was in vogue and was operating on the actual date of transfer. There is no explanation from fourth respondent as to why the case of the petitioners was not transferred to the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate on 10.7.2019. To be noted, the first step towards non designation itself was taken only thereafter, i.e., 06.09.2019 and actual non designation happened only on 11.10.2019 when G.O.Ms.No.535 came to be passed by third respondent. Therefore, it is clear that on the date of actual transfer, i.e., 10.7.2019, a designated court for trying the offences involving M.Ps / M.L.As at magisterial level, namely II Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai was very much available, but the transfer was made to a Sessio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions Judge and not to Additional Special Court presided by a Senior Civil Judge. Third flaw is, this runs contrary to one of the aforementioned memoranda dated 7.6.2019 from fourth respondent. Therefore, the three flaws are (a)overlooking the subtle but certain difference between the cadre of a judicial officer (in service) presiding a Court and hierarchy / classes of courts as in Cr.P.C., (b) on a demurer, the transfer was ultimately not made to a court presided by a Judge in the same cadre as that of EO Court (though available) as transfer was made to Special Court No.1 presided by a Sessions Judge and not to Additional Special Court presided by a judicial officer in the cadre of Senior Civil Judge and (c) in one of the two memoranda dated 7.6.2019 bearing reference Roc No.5745/2018/G4 addressed inter-alia to Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, 4th respondent has directed (in page Nos.2 and 3 of the memorandum) as follows: '(4) The Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is further directed to instruct the Sessions Judge, Special Court No.I for trial of criminal cases against MPs/MLAs, Chennai; (a) to transfer the cases pertaining to Chennai jurisdic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an express provision in Cr.P.C in this regard and the other is any express provision in this regard in any other law. An express provision if any can at best be considered to be one under Section 280B(a) of IT Act, which talks about Special Court. The question of cases on hand being heard by a special court will arise only if so designated as mentioned in section 280A of IT Act. A perusal of section 280B of IT Act makes it clear that offences become triable by Special Court 'if so designated', but, no such designation has been made as far as Tamil Nadu is concerned. Therefore, lack of original jurisdiction for Sessions Court argument is saved by Ranbir Yadav principle though ideally, transfer could have been made to II Metropolitan Magistrate Court. 52. As already alluded to supra, a perusal of section 26 of Cr.P.C makes it clear that offences on hand are triable by Magistrate courts. Absent Special court under Section 280A of IT Act, section 26 of Cr.P.C operates and section 26 of Cr.P.C more particularly, subsection (b) of section 26 makes it clear that offences on hand which are 'offences under any other law' are triable in accordance with the First Schedule to Cr.P.C. 53....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Barnard {[1964] AC 1129}. However, Lord Denning writing for the Courts of Appeal in Cassell case held that Rookes case is per incuriam and therefore, is not binding. Cassell case was carried to House of Lords which held in no uncertain terms that Courts of Appeal cannot avoid an otherwise binding precedent of House of Lords by merely declaring it as per incuriam. House of Lords held that it is necessary for each tier in the hierarchy of Courts including the Court of Appeal to accept loyally the decisions of the higher tiers. In other words, unwavering hierarchical loyalty was considered to be more important than judicial individuality. To be noted, Cassell case penned by Lord Denning for the Courts of Appeal was in 1971 and after it was carried to House of Lord, the decision was rendered by House of Lords in 1972. Interestingly, three years later, i.e., 1975, in Schorsch Meier case (Schorsch Meier G.m.b.H Vs. Henning reported in [1975] 1 AB 416), the question as to whether an English Court can make an award qua a judgment in foreign currency arose. The answer to this question was readily available as it was blessed with a precedent in the form of a verdict of House of Lords in Re ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as many Sessions and as many Magisterial courts to be constituted / designated. 57. Therefore, ideally, either more number of Magistrate Courts should have been designated or Hon'ble Supreme Court should have been approached for suitable directions. This turns on fundamental principle of discipline in hierarchy of Courts. Therefore, the argument that transfer has the trappings / is traceable to Article 227 and Section 407 Cr.P.C is an argument which not only does not impress this Court, but it is an argument which cannot even be countenanced. However, all this takes us back to the question of what is the prejudice that has been caused to petitioners owing to all this. 58. With regard to the argument that petitioners were neither M.Ps / M.L.As nor former M.Ps / M.L.As on the date of alleged offence or on the date of launching complaints, as Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed all pending cases to be transferred, this argument fails. 59. Likewise, the argument that only one of the petitioners has become an M.P is of no avail to petitioners, as Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed transfer of all cases involving sitting / former M.Ps /M.L.As. 60. In the light of the discussi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e date of actual transfer on 10.7.2019, the transfer to Sessions Court does not infarct the rights of petitioners owing to section 292 of IT Act. (h) Sessions Court lacks original jurisdiction argument is neutralized by Ranbir Yadav principle which says that committal is not necessary in a case of transfer. (i) Therefore, petitioners' challenge to transfer fails and Crl.O.P.Nos.22136 and 22137 of 2019 fails. 61. Before parting with the cases on hand, as instant cases are Crl.O.Ps under section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court reminds itself of Govind principle laid down by Hon'ble Delhi Court in Govind Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2003) 68 DRJ 446 (DB) and Pepsi Foods principle being law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749. These two principles, i.e., Govind principle and Pepsi Foods principle pertain to scope of powers of a Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C qua powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Relevant paragraphs in Govind case law rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High court are paragraphs 61, 62 and 76. Relevant paragraphs in Pepsi Foods case law rendered by H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. The High Court has power to issue certain writs, orders and directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. Clause (1) of Article 226, which is relevant, is as under: "226. (1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including (writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose)." 21.The questions which arise for consideration are if in the circumstances of the case, the appellants rightly approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and if so, was the High Court justified in refusing to grant any relief to the appellants because of the view which it took of the law and the facts of the case. We have, thus, to examine the power of the High Court under Article....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee [AIR 1951 Cal 193] where the High Court said that the power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 was to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting their mere errors. The Court said that it was, therefore, a case which called for an interference by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner and it acted quite properly in doing so. 24. In Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta [(1975) 1 SCC 858 : AIR 1975 SC 1297] this Court again reaffirmed that the power of superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 being extraordinary was to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. It said that the High Court could not, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal and that its function was limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal functioned within the limits of its authority and that it could not correct mere errors of fact by examining....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch is the basis for this entire matter. Though obvious, it is made clear that this order will be an impetus to 4th and 3rd respondents for an exercise in this direction. 63. In the light of narrative, discussion and dispositive reasoning thus far, all four Criminal Original Petitions, namely Crl.O.P.Nos.22136 and 22137 of 2019, 1526 and 1527 of 2020 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. ============= Document 1 Roc.No.5745/2018/G4 By Special Messenger Dated: 06.09.2019 From C.Kumarappan, B.Sc., B.L., Registrar General, High Court, Madras -104. To OF JUDICATURE The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. Sir, no Subs Ref:- M Courts Designating the II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai as Special Court and appoints the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate as the Magistrate to try all the Magisterial cases involving elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu Notification issued Amendment to the G.O. Requested. Regarding. Cda G.O.(M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g" (ii) the entire row of Sl.No.1 viz. 1. Chennai II Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore Court, Egmore, Chennai and consequently renumbering Sl.Nos. 2 to 32 as Sl.No. 1 to 31. (iii) the words "Metropolitan Magistrate and" occurring after the word "concerned". I am, therefore, to request that necessary amendment as stated supra, may kindly be issued and the same may be communicated to the High Court, immediately. सतà¥à¤¯à¤®à¥‡à¤µ जयत Yours faithfully, WEB COPY Sd/-XXXX Registrar General. Document 3 2019 5:55 PM FAX ABSTRACT 0001 REGISTRAR GENERAL RECEIVED 15 OCT 2019 HIGH COURT. MA Courts - Designating the II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai as Special Court and appoint the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate as the Magistrate to try all the Magisterial cases involving elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu - Notification - Issued - Amendment - Orders - Issued. G.O.(Ms).No.535 GH ORDER:- Home (Courts-II) Department Dated 11.10.2019 விகாரி வà....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an Magistrate and" wherever they occur shall be omitted; (ii) in the tabular column, Sl.No.1 and the entries relating thereto shall be omitted. (BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) NIRANJAN MARDI ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai-104. The Director General of Police, Chennai-4. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai-7. All the District Collectors. All the Superintendents of Police. The Session Judge, Special Court for MPS & MLAs, 0/0 District Collector, Collectorate Campus, Chennai. The Director of Prosecution, Chennai-5. The Works Manager, Government Central Press, Chennai-79 (for publication of Notification in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette and to send 15 copies to Government and 50 copies to the Registrar General, High Court, Madras.) Copy to:- The Chief Minister's office, Chennai-9. The Special P.A. to Minister (Law, Courts & Prisons), Chennai-9. The Private Secretary to Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, P & E. Department, Chennai-9. SF/SCs. //Forwarded By Order// So. 172 11/10/19 Section Officer AS 11-10-19 Document 5 DETAILS OF....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of the District Case Name of the Court 0. Beginni ed Institut Total Number of cases disposed pendin (SC/CC/STC& others) gat ng of during of during the month ed by the the the Transfer end of month month the month Convict Acquitte Other ed d (e) (d)+( (8) (h) (i) (b) (c) (d) CC DHARMAPURI Judicial Magistrate No.1 Court, Dharmapuri 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 DHARMAPURI District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, OTHERS 1 0 Pennagaram 0 0 0 0 0 1 DHARMAPURI Total 7 0 0 0 6 DINDIGUL Principal District Court, Dindigul CC 3 DINDIGUL Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul STC 0 0 0 0 50000005 DINDIGUL Total 8 0 0 7 ERODE Principal District Court, Erode CC 2 0 ERODE Principal District Court, Erode SC 2 0 0 ERODE Judicial Magistrate No.1, Erode STC 2 0 0 ERODE Total 99 6 0 0 10000 0000000 000000 loooooo 000000 00 0 0 2 3 8 2 0 2 0 2 0 6. KANCHEEPURAM Principal District and Sessions Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... STC MADURAI Total 13 NAGAPATTINAM NAGAPATTINAM NAGAPATTINAM Total UM No. V, Madurai J.M. Melur PRC PRC 26120452-1-11-22 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ο 0 0 0 0 0 0 ooooooo 2 6 1 2 0 4 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 ° 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Ο 0 0 4 0 0 0 Q 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ° 0 13 0 0 STC District and Sessions Court, Nagapattinam Judicial Magistrate No.1 Court, Nagapattinam 14 NAMAKKAL Principal District Court, Namakkal CC NAMAKKAL Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Namakkal BIR 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° 15 ན་ག 0 0 ° 0 1 1 0 ° 0 0 1 NAMAKKAL Judicial Magistrate No.1.Court Namakkal STC NAMAKKAL Judicial Magistrate No.1.Court Namakkal FIR 30000003 ° 0 0 0 0 900 0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 0 0 0 00000000 19 -27-222 10 21 THANJAVUR Principal District Court ce 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 THANJAVUR Judicial Magistrate No.1 Thanjavur STC 0 0 0 0 0 200 1 22 THANJAVUR Total 0 0 0 0 1 1 д 22 THENI Principal District Court C.C. 1/12 0 0 0 0 lo о 0 1 Document 9 P SLN Name of the District Name of the Court HI Category of Casc (SC/CC/STC & othes] Opening Balance No. of Cases Numbe r of No. of cases at the Institut Beginni ed ng of during ed by Cases Institut Total Number of cases disposed of during the month pendin gat the the the Transfer end of month month the month Convict Acquitte Other ed d (b) (d) (e) (d+ (1) (8) (h) (4) THENI Total 23 THOOTHUKUDI THOOTHUKUDI THOOTHUKUDI Total 24 TRICHY e) 1 0 0 0 0 Principal District Court Spl.Case 3 0 0 0 0 Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchendur Sessions Case 3 0 0 0 0. 6 0 0 0 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....VARUR TIRUVARUR Total 30 Vellare Vellore Vellore Vellore Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Mannargudi Judicial Magistrate Court NoThiruthuraipoondi Principal District Court Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Vellore Judicial Magistrate No.Il Court, Tirupattur Judicial Magistrate, Sholinghur Vellore Total D 31 Villupuram Villupuram Villupuram Villupuram Total 32 VIRUDHUNAGAR Principal District Sessions Court, Villupuram SPI Court for SC/ST (POA) Act, Villupurain Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Villupunen Principal District Court, Srivilliputtur. CUM Court, Brivilliputtur. STC FIR Stage 5 0 0 ° 0 0 0 5 7 S.C. 8 Spl.SC 1 PRE 1 80 1 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° ° 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ° ° 1 0 0 ° 0 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 9 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 Spl SC 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Gee my 4 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 OC 3 0 0 0 0 SPLCC 0 0 0 0 ° VIRUDHUNAGAR....