A Special Court has jurisdiction to try an offence only if the offence is specified in the Schedule to the Act under which the Special Court is constituted and the case is distributed to the Special Court by a notification mentioning the charge against the accused.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - Special Courts - Jurisdiction - Offence under S. 165A, Indian Penal Code - Whether triable by Special Court constituted under West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 (W. B. XXI of 1949) - Notification distributing case to Special Court mentioning offence as Ss. 161/116, Indian Penal Code - Whether Special Court had jurisdiction to try offence under S. 165A, Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under S. 165A, Indian Penal Code by a Special Court constituted under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 (W. B. XXI of 1949). The notification distributing the case to the Special Court mentioned the offence as Ss. 161/116, Indian Penal Code, which was a non-existent offence at the time the Special Court took cognizance of the case. The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Special Court to try him for an offence under S. 165A, Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the Special Court did not have jurisdiction to try the appellant for an offence under S. 165A, Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the notification distributing the case to the Special Court did not mention S. 165A, Indian Penal Code, and that at the time the Special Judge purported to take cognizance, he had no jurisdiction to do so and to try the case, as the offence under S. 165A was not in the Schedule of the West Bengal Act 1949 as amended in 1952.
Issues: 1. Whether the Special Court had jurisdiction to try the appellant for an offence under S. 165A, Indian Penal Code? 2. Whether the defect of jurisdiction could be cured by S. 529 (e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of the Special Court arose when the notification was issued distributing the case to a particular Special Court giving the name of the accused and mentioning the charge or charges against him which must be under one of the offences specified in the Schedule. In the absence of any of these elements the Special Court would have no jurisdiction. 2. Section 529 (e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to Magistrates and would not apply to a Special Judge whose jurisdiction arises not on his taking cognizance under S. 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but on the case for an offence specified in the Schedule being distributed to him by the State Government by notification.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant under S. 165A, I. P. C., and the sentence imposed thereunder.

Judgment

J. L. KAPUR, J. : This is an appeal by leave of the High Court of Calcutta against the judgment & order of that Court dismissing the appellant s appeal against the order of conviction by the Special Court of Burdwan for an offence under S. 165-A, Indian Penal Code and six months rigorous imprisonment.

2. The facts leading to this appeal are that one Istipada Ghosh and his son were being tried in the court of an Assistant Sessions Judge, Burdwan with a jury of five. During the course of the trial the appellant approached one of the jurors Baidya Nath Mukherjee and offered him illegal gratification as an inducement for giving a verdict favourable to Ghoshes. On the morning of September 6, 1952 the juror narrated these facts to the police and thereupon the officer in charge sent a Sub-Inspector to arrest the appellant if he offered the bribe. After a little while the appellant came to the appointed place and offered Rs. 40 in four 10 rupee notes to the juror and while he was trying to pass those notes to the juror the Police Officer arrested the appellant. The First Information Report for an offence under Ss. 161/l16, Indian Penal Code was made soon after. And after investigation a report was made by the police officer in charge Burdwan police station which resulted in the case being sent to the Special Judge, Burdwan. On November 27, 1952 the Government issued the following notification No. 6603J under S. 4 (2) of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 (W. B. XXI of 1949) :

"In exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (2) of S. 4 of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 (West Bengal Act XXI of 1949) the Governor is pleased to distribute to the Burdwan Special Court constituted by notification No. 4632J, dated the 22nd August, 1952 under S. 2 of the said Act the following cases involving offences specified in the Schedule to the said Act to be tried by the said Special Court:

.... .... .... .... .... .... ....

4. The State versus Bhajhari Mondal, son of Bhuson Chandra Mondal of Katwa Station Bazar Police Station Katwa, district Burdwan under Ss. 161/l16 of the Indian Penal Code. . .. .. .. . . . . . . .. ."

This notification shows that the offence charged against the appellant was one under Ss. 161/l16 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The order sheet of the Special Court shows that the records of the case State v.B. C. Mondal under Ss.161/l16, Indian Penal Code were received by the Special Judge on December 23, 1952 and the Special Court took cognizance of case, the appellant was summoned for appearance on January 22, 1953 and he did appear on that day. On December 21, 1953 after several adjournments the hearing of the case was fixed for January 29, 1954 on which date the examination of witnesses commenced. On February 10, 1954 a charge under S. 165A, Indian Penal Code was framed by the Special Judge. The trial ended on June 7, 1954 and the appellant was convicted under Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment Against this order of conviction the appellant took an appeal to the High Court of Calcutta which was dismissed. It held that the appellant had rightly been convicted under S. 165-A and that the Special Court had jurisdiction to try the offence under that Section from July 28, 1952 to May 9, l953 under S. 7 of the Central Act (XLVI of l952) and from May 9, 1953 under the West Bengal Act (W. B. XV of 1953). It also held that any defect in the taking of cognizance was curable under S. 529 (e) of the Criminal Procedure Code and that as a matter of fact the Special Judge took cognizance under S. 165-A and not under Ss. 161/116, Indian Penal Code. On December 16, 1955 the High Court granted leave to appeal to this Court.

4. Counsel for the appellant has not contested the appeal on any question of fact but has confined his arguments to the question of jurisdiction. He contended that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document