TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 288
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 way of sale of immovable properties (lands) in Muttukadu ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 was also neither a sitting nor former M.P/M.L.A on the date o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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) Complaints sought to be quashed are clearly barred by limitation as the same have been launched af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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, 1955 (16 of 1955). 9. The Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962). 10. The Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (45 of 1968). 11. The Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (18 of 1947). 12. The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (7 of 1947). 13. The F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 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 instructions that Managing Director of purchaser company has now retracted his statement in some collateral proceedings. All these aspects of said complaints are clearly matters for trial. Aforementioned one answer of the prosecution, i.e., answer that said criminal complaints are not based on assessment/s, but they are based on search and seizure....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame 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 prosecution is based solely on statements of third parties (purchaser company). Therefore, in the light of the discussion supra regarding principles for quashment, facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be gainsaid by petitioners that prosecution has been launched solely based on the statement made by some third parties. 24. The aforesaid narrative ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd 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 section 374(2). In other words, to put it differently, if said criminal complaints are tried by Economic offences Court, i.e., EO court, then parties can prefer a revision under section 397 of Cr.P.C to this court post appeal, but the same will be unavailable if it is tried and disposed of by transferee court, i.e., Sessions court. (g) While EO court has original jurisdiction, transferee court which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nter-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 form subject matter of the cases on hand, Registrar General of this Court (fourth respondent in first and second Crl.O.Ps) vide proceedings dated 6.9.2019 bearing Roc No.5745/2018/G4 wrote to Government of Tamil Nadu, in other words, fourth respondent wrote to third respondent for non designating II Metropolitan Magistrate Court citing workload. (l) Pursuant to aforesaid 06.09.2019 proceedings of fourth respondent, Government iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 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 of Cr.P.C read as follows: '9. Court of Session.-(1)The State Government shall establish a Court of Session for every sessions division. (2) Every Court of Session shall be presided over by a Judge, to be appointed by the High Court. (3) The High Court may also appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Session Judges to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session. (4) The Sessions Judge of one sessions division may be appointed by the High Court to be also an Additional Sessions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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) respectively of Cr.P.C. Sections 2(g) and 2(h) read as follows : '2.Definitions.-In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) to (f) * * * * * (g) "inquiry" means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or Court; (h) "investigation" includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf;' (i) Inter-alia with regard to definitions, Cr.P.C is dovetailed with 'The Indian Penal Code,' ('IPC' for brevi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 that this has been done in some other States. Be that as it may, we have to necessarily revert to Cr.P.C. When we revert to Cr.P.C., with regard to Metropolitan areas, the same has been described in section 8 of Cr.P.C., which reads as follows: '8. Metropolitan areas.-(1) The State Government may, by notification, declare that, as from such date as may be specified in the notification, any area in the State comprising a city or town whose population exceeds one million shall be a metropolitan area for the purposes of this Code. (2) As from the commencement of this Code, each of the Presidency-towns of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras and the city of Ahmedabad shall be deemed to be declared under sub-section (1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 as far as practicable by a Court presided over by a woman. (b) any offence under any other law shall, when any Court is mentioned in this behalf in such law, be tried by such Court and when no Court is so mentioned, may be tried by- (i) the High Court, or (ii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be triable.' (n) As no special court has been designated within the meaning of section 280A of IT Act, it is clear that instant cases fall under section 26(b) of Cr.P.C. Section 26(b) in turn leads to First Schedule of Cr.P.C. First Schedule of Cr.P.C is in two parts, namely, Part-I and Part-II. While Part-I of First Schedule of Cr.P.C deals with offences under IPC, Part-II of First Schedule of Cr.P.C deals with classification of offences qua / against other laws. Considering the importance of su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 construed as such a notification. (e) On the date of alleged offence as well as on the date of filing of said criminal complaints, both petitioners were neither M.Ps/M.L.As nor former M.Ps/M.L.As; even as on the date of transfer, i.e., 10.7.2019, only one of the petitioners had become a sitting M.P. 29. In response to aforesaid submissions, respondents, more particularly, learned counsel for fourth respondent made submissions, summation of which is as follows: (a) Magisterial offence can be tried by a higher court and there is no bar in law for such a course; (b) The concept of committal and court of Sessions lacking original jurisdiction cannot be pressed into service as the same does not apply to cases of transfer; (c) Petitioners are not deprived of any right of appeal owing to transfer, as, if the case had been disposed of by Economic Offence Court-II, i.e., EO Court, an appeal against conviction will lie to Prin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olitical 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 discontinued. Relevant portion of order dated 14.12.2017 : Immediately after such allocation is made and intimated to the respective State Governments, the State Governments in consultation with the High Courts will set up the Fast Track Courts (12 in all) to ensure that the said Courts start functioning from 01.03.2018. All necessary/required notification(s) shall be issued by the concerned/respective State Government(s). The High Court(s), acting through the various trial Courts, will trace out from the case records the particular 5 case(s) pending in the files of the respective judicial officers under the jurisdiction of the High Court(s) which are required to be dealt with by the Special Courts under the Scheme and thereafter transfer the said cases to such Special Courts(s) for adjudication. Relevant portion of order dated 04.12.2018 : Having considered the matter we are of the view that the suggestions of the learned Amicus Curiae should be tried out with certain modifications and in a limited....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orementioned directions, sequence of letters, proceedings issued by fourth respondent and Government Orders issued by third respondent have been collated from different papers, typed sets forming part of case file and they are set out in chronological order and the same is as follows: (i) Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 01.11.2017. (ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 14.12.2017. (iii) UOI Law Secretary letter dated 16.01.2018. (iv) D.O. Letter No.5745/2018/G4 dated 21.2.2018 issued by R-4. (v) G.O.Ms.No.697 dated 9.7.2018 issued by R-3. (vi) Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 21.08.2018. (vii) G.O.Ms.No.1423 dated 6.9.2018 issued by R-3. (viii) Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 12.09.2018. (ix) OM in Roc No.5745/2018/G4 dated 14.9.2018 issued by R-4. (x) Roc No.5745/2018/G4 dated 14.09.2018 issued by R-4. (xi) G.O.Ms.No.1568 dated 17.9.2018 by R-3. (xii) OM in Roc No.5745/2018/G4 dt.19.9.2018 issued by R-4. (xiii)Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 04.12.2018. (xiv) Letter in Roc No.5745/2018/G4 dt.5.3.2019 issued by R-4. (xv) Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 25.03.2019. (xvi) Letter in Roc No.5745/2018/G4 dt.12.4.2019 issued by R-4. (xvii) G.O.Ms....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shall be the XXI Additional District / Sessions Judge, as this Court is informed that there are already 20 Additional District /Sessions Judges in Chennai. Pursuant to 21.02.2018 letter from fourth respondent, third respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.697 on 09.7.2018, wherein sanction was accorded for constitution of one Special Court. Sanction of one District Judge and 13 staff was accorded and it was made clear that the same will be notified subsequently. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed that 12 Special Courts Pan India have been constituted. What is of relevance is these 12 special courts constituted Pan India as noticed by Hon'ble Supreme Court includes the aforementioned one special court constituted in Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms.No.697 dated 9.7.2018. In this regard, points 2 and 4 of order dated 21.8.2018 made by Hon'ble Supreme Court (which have already been extracted and reproduced supra elsewhere in this order) are relevant. 37. Thereafter, third respondent issued a Government Order being G.O.Ms.No.1423 dated 06.09.2018 notifying the Special Court constituted vide G.O.Ms.No.697 dated 9.7.2018. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court passed one more order dated 12.09.2018 wherei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....more particularly, as many Sessions courts and as many magistrate Courts as required in each District. Thereafter, 05.03.2019 letter of fourth respondent (Sl.No.xiv) came to be sent. Interestingly, in this letter, fourth respondent has observed that there are no magisterial offences involving present or former M.Ps / M.L.As in Chennai. Besides this, fourth respondent in this letter has referred to clubbing of both Sessions trial and Magisterial trial cases in one court and the relevant portion of this letter in this regard reads as follows: 'It is specifically suggested in paragraph 13 (3) of the report of the learned Amicus Curiae that some of the Courts where special Courts have been constituted appeared to have clubbed both the Sessions trial and Magisterial trial Cases in one Court, which is not permissible in law.' It is under these circumstances that Hon'ble Supreme Court passed further directions in I.A.No.31721 of 2019 dated 25.03.2019. Vide this directive, Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that all pending criminal cases relating to MPs and MLAs have to be transferred to the Special courts for fast tracking. Thereafter, fourth respondent appears to have written a letter da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt and additional special court referred to supra had started functioning in Chennai from 10.7.2019. 42. It is after all the above proceedings, letters and Government orders that fourth respondent wrote a letter dated 6.9.2019 to third respondent for non designating the II Metropolitan Magistrate Court citing work load and acting on the same, third respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.535 dated 11.10.2019 non designating the II Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Chennai. To be noted, these two events happened after the actual transfer (on 10.07.2019) of said criminal complaints from EO court, i.e., Economic Offences Court-II, Egmore, Chennai to Sessions Court, i.e., Special Court for trial of Criminal cases related to elected MPs/MLAs of Tamil Nadu, Singaravelan Maligai, Chennai. In other words, the actual transfer on 10.07.2019 took place when the II Metropolitan Magistrate which was designated for trying magisterial offences involving former / present M.Ps/M.L.As, was very much functioning. As already alluded to supra, there will be more discussion about this infra. 43. Third and fourth respondents have understood the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court as orders / directives to constitute / ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r having constituted / designated courts also in the same manner, non designating the lone Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Chennai alone particularly when Hon'ble Supreme Court had made it clear that as many courts as necessary, deemed fit and expedient have to be constituted / designated at both levels deserves a closer examination. This court is constrained to make this observation as the lone reason for non designating the II Metropolitan Magistrate is work load and the perception that said court may not be able to allocate time to hear cases involving M.Ps / M.L.As on day to day basis. To be noted, as noticed supra, according to fourth respondent, there were no magisterial offences / cases in this category as of 05.03.2019. Be that as it may, a simple way out would have been to constitute / designate more courts at magisterial level, as Hon'ble Supreme Court has already given directives with specificity in this regard. To be noted, even today, it is submitted without any disputation that Courts of Judicial Magistrates which were designated / constituted in 31 judicial districts for trying cases involving M.Ps / M.L.As are still functioning. Therefore, 6.9.2019 letter / communi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tropolitan Magistrate. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that counter affidavit of fourth respondent also does not throw light and / or explain these three aspects, encapsulation of which is as follows: (i) More Metropolitan Magistrate Courts could have been constituted / designated as Special Courts instead of seeking non designation of II Metropolitan Magistrate if it was overworked, as Hon'ble Supreme Court itself directs with specificity to create as many Courts as necessary at both Sessions and Magisterial levels. (ii) On the date of transfer, II Metropolitan Magistrate was available, but transfer was not made to this court. (iii) If II Metropolitan Magistrate was overburdened and if fourth respondent had taken a decision to non designate II Metropolitan Magistrate and not to designate any other court in Chennai, it should not have been done unilaterally, but ideally, Hon'ble Supreme Court should have been approached, as Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed creation of as many Special Courts as considered fit, proper and expedient at both Sessions and Magistrates levels. 47. Communication dated 06.09.2019 from 4th respondent to 3rd respondent (which has already be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion).' Notwithstanding this, ultimately, said criminal complaints were transferred to Special Court-1 and not to Additional Special Court. This baffling and bewildering aspect of the matter remained unexplained throughout the hearing and there was no enlightenment in this regard in the hearing. 48. With regard to allocation of cases pan Tamil Nadu, learned counsel for fourth respondent has placed before this court a statement in tabular form which is as follows : 49. The statement of fourth respondent in tabular form (scanned and reproduced supra) makes it clear that if the complaint regarding the same alleged offences, i.e., alleged offences under sections 276C(1), 277 of IT Act / said provisions read with section 278 of IT Act, are to be tried in the adjoining Chengalpet judicial District or for that matter in any one of the 31 judicial Districts in Tamil Nadu (other than Chennai District), the accused will stand trial before a Judicial Magistrate, whereas in Chennai alone, accused will stand trial in a Sessions Court. This is clearly a disparity / lack of parity, is learned petitioners' counsel's say, but this leads to the question as to what is the prejudice caused to petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a submission was made by pressing into service a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2013) 15 SCC 460. This submission/ argument was to the effect that with regard to First Schedule to Cr.P.C, the court by which offences is triable will apply only if all the other columns remain unaltered. Extending this argument, it was submitted that instant cases which fall under Part-II of First Schedule of Cr.P.C is relatable to cognizable offences in the second column, whereas Section 279A of IT Act has made the offences on hand non cognizable offences. 54. This Court examined this argument. Kamlesh Kumar case pertains to what is referred to as Fodder Scam case in Bihar. Children of former Director of Department of Animal Husbandry assailed trial of FERA case against them by Sessions Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that offences for which petitioners in Kamlesh Kumar case were tried had been held to be non cognizable under section 56 of erstwhile FERA and therefore, there is no exclusivity. 55. This takes us to yet another aspect of the submissions of learned counsel for fourth respondent. That aspect of submission is that transfer though....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applied cessante ratione principle and held that the rule laid down by House of Lords in United Railways case had become obsolete as the situation and circumstances which existed in 1961 when United Railways case was decided ceased to exist owing to changed dynamics and dimensions of economic condition. However, this Schorsch Meier case was not carried to House of Lords. Though Schorsch Meier case was not carried to House of Lords, a similar issue arose before House of Lords a year later, i.e., 1976 in Miliangos Vs. George Frank (Textiles) Ltd. reported in [1976] AC 443. This Miliangos case was before House of Lords presided over by five Lords, namely Lords Wilberforce, Simon, Cross, Edmund-Davies and Fraser. Interestingly, all the five in House of Lords unanimously held that the earlier rule in Re United Railways that English Court cannot award a judgment in foreign currency should be changed. This means that the view taken by Lord Denning in Schorsch Meier case that United Railways principle had become obsolete stood vindicated. What is of utmost significance is, though House of Lords also held that United Railways principle had become obsolete (in Miliangos case), it held that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation and present it in a nutshell which is as follows : (a) Ideally, 4th and 3rd respondents should have designated more Metropolitan Magistrate Courts in Chennai, if the already designated II Metropolitan Magistrate Court is overburdened as Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that as many Courts as necessary, fit and expedient can be designated at both Sessions and Magisterial levels. (b) The argument of petitioners that one tier, namely, revision under section 397 of Cr.P.C is taken away does not hold water as courts have repeatedly held that revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C is not a legal right as it is a discretionary relief. (c) Notwithstanding the above, no prejudice has been demonstrated by petitioners owing to being asked to stand trial in a Sessions Court; (d) With regard to standing trial in a Magistrate Court and standing trial in a Sessions Court, the lone difference projected before this Court pertains to further revision under section 397 Cr.P.C post appeal against conviction, if that be so. As the law is clear that revision is not a right unlike an appeal, this lone difference being canvassed as a ground by petitioners gets obliterated. The result is, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... even by amendment of the Constitution. In Minerva Mills (supra) the Court has characterised that the power of judicial review conferred by Articles 32 and 226 as part of basic structure of the Constitution. The Court observed that judicial review is a vital principle of our Constitution and it cannot be abrogated without effecting the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, as far as the existence of the power is concerned, it cannot be doubted and the power of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be abridged, abrogated or diluted even by the amendment of the Constitution. Neither the power can be taken away by judicial pronouncement, nor by legislative enactment or even by the amendment of the Constitution. 62.All concerned may clearly appreciate this fact that the learned Single Judge exercises the powers of the High Court. In conclusion, it can be safely concluded that the existence of the powers of the learned Single Judge under Section 482 and Article 226 to quash the proceedings cannot be disputed or questioned. However, those powers have to be exercised in consonance with the well recognised principles laid down in a catena of cases by the Suprem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd also the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which it said could be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While laying down certain guidelines where the court will exercise jurisdiction under these provisions, it was also stated that these guidelines could not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae to be followed by the courts. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. One of such guidelines is where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. Under Article 227 the power of superintendence by the High Court is not only of administrative nature but is also of judicial nature. This article confers vast powers on the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of law by the inferior courts and to see that the stream of administration of justice remains ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion Appeal Tribunal [(1952) 1 All ER 122] . 25. In Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commr. of Hills Division [AIR 1958 SC 398 : 1958 SCR 1240] this Court observed as under: "It is thus, clear that the powers of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution with orders of judicial or quasi-judicial nature, are not greater than the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under Article 226, the power of interference may extend to quashing an impugned order on the ground of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. But under Article 227 of the Constitution, the power of interference is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority." 26. Nomenclature under which petition is filed is not quite relevant and that does not debar the court from exercising its jurisdiction which otherwise it possesses unless there is special procedure prescribed which procedure is mandatory. If in a case like the present one the court finds that the appellants could not invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226, the court can certainly treat the petition as one under Article 227 or Section 482 of the Code. It may not however, be lost sight of that provisi....