TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1977 (12) TMI 153
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of law and will be disposed of by this judgment. 2. Briefly the facts are as follows : A complaint was made against the accused by Shri J. F. C. Mc. Mohan, Dock Manager, Calcutta Port Commissioners, to the South Port Police Station alleging offences under Sections 120B/420/379/ 466/468/471. I.P.C. against several accused including the respondents who happened to be public servants at the material time. The State Government issued a Notification No. 3165-J on 8-4-1970 under Section 4 of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) allotting the said case for trial to the Third Additional Special Court, Calcutta constituted under the provisions of the said Act for trial, of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the contention of the respondent that no legal and valid cognizance of-offence was taken by the learned Judge, Special Court and, therefore, the entire proceedings became vitiated and hence were quashed. The High Court in disposing of the matter in this way followed two earlier Division Bench decisions of the said Court in Sudhir Chandra Bhattacharjee v. The State Criminal Appeals Nos. 23 to 26 of 1961 decided on 29th March, 1967, and Shyama Saran Das Gupta v. The State, decided on 11th April, 1975. 5. The question that falls for decision in these appeals to the cognizance of the offences by the Special Judge under the Act. As the preamble shows, the Act provides for the more 'speedy trial 'and more effective punishment of cert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt" were inserted. 7. It may be of interest to note that in a case under the un-amended section before the Special Court this Court had to deal with the question of cognizance canvassed before it in Ajit Kumar Palit v. State of West Bengal [1963] Supp. (1) S.C.R. 953. This Court held on the terms of the provisions of the un-amended Section 5(1) of the Act as follows :- The word "cognizance" has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law or procedure. It merely means- become aware of and when used with reference to a Court or Judge, to take notice of judicially. It was stated in Gopal Marwari v. Emperor AIR 1943 Pat 245 by the learned Judges of the patna High Court in a passage quoted with approval by this Court in R.R. c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance of the offence. Since in the present case, proceeds the argument of Mr. Sen, the Special Judge took cognizance merely on the complaint of the Sub-Inspector of Police without proceeding in accordance with Section 200, Cr. P.C. the "entire proceedings are vitiated. 9. We are unable to accede to the above submission of Mr. Sen. It is true that the amendment has introduced the manner of taking cognizance in accordance with Section, 190(1)(a) & (b), Cr. P.C. appearing in Chapter XV of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, but the legislature in the amendment at the same time, has advisedly omitted to include Section 200, Cr. P.C. and the other provisions of the next Chapter which is Chapter XVI dealing with "complaints to Magistrates". 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, therefore, no merit in the submission that taking cognizance of the offence in this case is invalid for which the whole trial is vitiated. 12. The words "in the manner laid down in Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898" do not automatically introduce the provisions of Section 200, Cr. P.C. of Chapter XVI, nor do the above words in Section 5(2) of the Act mandatorily compel the Special Judge to resort to the provisions of Chapter XVI. 13. Apart from this, Chapter XVI in terms refers to "complaints to Magistrates" and thereby excludes Special Judges who are to be guided by the special provisions of the special Act in the matters provided therein. There is nothing in Section 5(1) of....