Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2003 (3) TMI 124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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. - 1656-1663 of 1995 - - - Dated:- 5-3-2003 - S. Rajendra Babu and G.P. Mathur, JJ. [Judgment per : G.P. Mathur, J.]. - The Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports filed eight complaints against several persons including the respondents herein for their prosecution under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 5 of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The respondents (accused nos. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Schedule but had no jurisdiction to try offences under the Indian Penal Code. 4.Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the view taken by the High Court is against the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and merely on account of the fact the Special Court had been created by issuing a notification under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the aforesaid Code, the said Court would not be divested of the jurisdiction to try offences under the Indian Penal Code. Shri Ashok Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused-respondents has, on the other hand, submitted that the effect of the notification was that the jurisdiction of the Special Court was confined to the offences under the Acts mentioned in the Schedule and it could not try any other offence including that under the Indian Penal Code. 5.In our opinion, the plea raised by the accused-respondents is plainly against the scheme and provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"). Clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Code provides that where, under any law, other than the Code, the functions exercisable by a Magistrate relate to matter .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iew of specific provision contained in clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Code, it is only a Judicial Magistrate who can try an offence under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and under Section 26 of the Code such a Magistrate has also the jurisdiction to try those offences under the Indian Penal Code, which the respondents are alleged to have committed. The relevant part of the Notification issued by the State Government on September 10, 1982 reads as under : "In partial modification of the Notification No. LAW 106 LCE 79, dated 1st September, 1982 and in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 read with clause (j) of Section 2 and Section 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (Central Act 2 of 1974) the Government of Karnataka, in consultation with the High Court of Karnataka, establishes for a period of one year with effect from the 13th day of September, 1982 a Special Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class called the Special Court (Economic Offences), Bangalore Metropolitan Area and the District of Bangalore for the trial of offences under the Acts specified in the Schedule having jurisdiction within t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The only reason given by the High Court in holding that the Special Court (Economic Offences) had no jurisdiction to try the offences under the Indian Penal Code is that in some other Statutes wherein Special Courts have been created, a specific provision had been made conferring power upon such Courts to try the offences under the Indian Penal Code and in absence of such a provision here, the Special Court (Economic Offences) would not have the jurisdiction to try the offences under the Indian Penal Code. In this connection, the High Court has referred to Section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 12AA of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 9 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and on the basis of these provisions such a conclusion has been drawn. In our opinion, the aforesaid reasoning of the High Court is wholly fallacious. The enactments referred to above by the High Court are Special Statutes which themselves created the offences, made specific provision for appointment of a Special Judge or a Designated Court for trial of offences, laid down their powers and also made specific provisions regarding procedure which was to be followed by suc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ut issuing process. There is no such legal requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons. The process issued to accused cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the Magistrate had not passed a speaking order." 10.This being the settled legal position, the order passed by the learned Magistrate would not be faulted on the ground given by the High Court. The High Court has gone to the extent of saying that as 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. With respect, we find 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 disp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates