Very Important Point
Special Judge (P.C. Act) Sikkim constituted under Section 3 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has competence to try the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for which the appellants stand charged.

Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Sections 13(1)(e), 13(2), 3 and 30(2)-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-Sections 5(1)(e) & 13(2)-Trial of offences committed under Act of 1947-Special Judge (P.C. Act) constituted under Section 3 of Act of 1988-Competent to try offences committed under Act of 1947 by virtue of deeming provision in Section 30(2) of Act of 1988.
       Held : The contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners are based on a wrong understanding of provisions of the Act of 1988. No doubt, Section 3 of the said Act refers only to offences punishable under the Act and the Special Courts constituted under Section 3 will have jurisdiction to try the offences punishable under the Act but Section 3 cannot be read in isolation. It should be read along with other provisions of the Act to understand the scope of thereof. Section 30(1) of the Act of 1988 repeals the Acts of 1947 and 1952. That does not mean that any offence which was committed under the Act of 1947 would cease to be triable after the repeal of the said Act. (Para 9)
       The last part of sub-section (2) of Section 30 of Act of 1988 introduces a legal fiction whereby anything done or action taken under or in pursuance of the Act of 1947 shall be deemed to have been done or taken under or in pursuance of corresponding provisions of the Act of 1988. That is, the fiction is to the effect that the Act of 1988 had come into force when such thing was done or action was taken. (Para 9)
       Consequently held : Applying the said ratio of the Constitution Bench, we arrive at the conclusion that the Special Court constituted under Section 3 of the Act of 1988 has competence to try the offences under the Act of 1947. (Para 13)
       Finally held : The present one is an afortiori case. When a Special Court constituted under an enactment other than the Act of 1952 can continue the proceedings by virtue of Section 30(2) of the Act of 1988, it goes without saying that the Special Court constituted under the Act of 1988 can take cognizance of the report filed before it and try the offences particularly when this Court had in its judgment dated March 29, 1994 held that the filing of such report was not precluded (vide 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 116). We have no hesitation to hold that the Special Judge (P.C. Act) Sikkim is competent to try the offences for which the appellants stand charged. (Paras 17 & 18)

Judgment

Srinivasan, J.-Leave granted.

The common question in these petitions relates to the competence of Special Judge (P.C. Act) Sikkim to try the cases registered against the petitioners herein under Sections 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner in S.L.Ps 146-148 of 1998 is the third respondent in S.L.Ps. 149-150 of 1998 and the petitioner in the later petitions is the third respondent in S.L.Ps. 146-148. The petitioner in the earlier petitions was the Chief Minister of Sikkim and the petitioner in the later petitions was a Member of Indian Administrative Service (Sikkim cadre) working at the relevant time as a Secretary to the Rural Development Department, Government of Sikkim.

2. Cases were registered against the petitioners by C.B.I. on 26.5.84 and 7.8.84 under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. On 7.1.87 the State of Sikkim issued a Notification withdrawing the consent given under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 to the C.B.I. for exercising powers and jurisdiction in the State of Sikkim for investigations of offences punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code specified therein as well as offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The said Notification was challenged in a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. This Court by its judgment dated March 29, 1994 allowed the writ petition and declared that the Notification dated 7.1.87, withdrawing the consent given by the Government of Sikkim earlier operated only prospectively and the said withdrawal would not apply to cases which were pending investigation on the date of issuance of the said Notification. The Court observed that the Notification dated 7.1.87 did not preclude the C.B.I. from submitting the report in the competent court under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the investigation conducted in RC 5/84-CIU (A) and RC 8/84-CIU (A). The judgment of this Court is reported in Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.1 .

3. It should be mentioned here that even before the said writ petition was filed, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act of 1947’) was repealed and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act of 1988’) came into force. The Act of 1947 was extended to the State of Sikkim with effect from 1.9.76. The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 had been extended to the State of Sikkim with effect from 15.5.76. The Act of 1988 became applicable to the State of Sikkim from the date it came into force namely 9.9.88. On 13.9.1994 the following Acts were made applicable to the State of Sikkim:

1. Cr.P.C. 1973

2. Indian Penal Code 1860

3. Indian Evidence Act 1972

On the same day, the State of Sikkim issued a Notification under Section 3 of the Act of 1988 appointing Shri A.P. Subba as Special Judge for trying cases referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 3(1) of the said Act for the whole of the State of Sikkim.

4. On 14.9.94 the C.B.I. filed its report before the said Special Judge as permitted by this Court in its judgment dated March 29, 1994. The Special Judge passed a detailed order on 11.8.95 holding that on the basis of materials on record he was of the view that prima facie there was ground for presuming that the accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Act of 1947 corresponding to Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Act of 1988 and accordingly charges had to be framed. Thereafter the petitioners raised a preliminary objection to the competence of the Special Judge to try the aforesaid offences. After hearing argument

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 619

Very Important PointSpecial Judge (P.C. Act) Sikkim constituted under Section 3 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has competence to try the offences under Preven­tion of Corruption Act, 1947 for which the appellants stand charged.

Cases Referred (3)

Very Important Point
Special Judge (P.C. Act) Sikkim constituted under Section 3 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has competence to try the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for which the appellants stand charged.