1. Conspiracy to smuggle gold — Appointment of Special Judicial Magistrate under Section 14, Code of Criminal Procedure — Challenge to jurisdiction and constitutionality of appointment. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 322
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
11th October, 1962
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Jagannath Sonu Parkar and others, Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another Respondents.
Petition No.65 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. S. R. Chari, Senior Advocate (M/s R. K. Garg and K. R. Chaudhuri advocates with him) for Petitioners; Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate (Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with him), for Respondents.
Advocates:
A.S.R.CHARI, BINDRA, K.R.CHAUDHARY, N.S.ACHARYA, R.H.Dhebar, R.K.GARG
A.S.R.CHARI, BINDRA, K.R.CHAUDHARY, N.S.ACHARYA, R.H.Dhebar, R.K.GARG
The appointment of a Special Magistrate under Section 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to try specific cases is not discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution, provided normal procedures are followed, and differences in appellate forums based on the Magistrate's powers do not constitute inequality.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Section 14 - Constitution of Special Magistrates - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Equality before law - Appointment of a Special Judicial Magistrate with powers of a Presidency Magistrate for specific cases in multiple local areas - Law vesting discretion in an authority to appoint a Special Magistrate to try cases entirely under the normal procedure cannot be regarded as discriminatory and is not hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 4)
(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Section 14 - Interpretation of "case" - Power to appoint a Special Judicial Magistrate in respect of a particular case, a particular class or classes of cases, or in regard to cases generally in any local area - The expression "case" includes a case which is either pending or which may be instituted after the date of the constitution of the Special Magistrate. (Para 5)
(C) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Sittings of Magistrates - No provision in the Code enjoins upon a Magistrate the duty to hold sittings in any particular place within their local area; the place of sitting is a matter of discretion for the Magistrate. (Para 6)
(D) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Appeal - Difference in the forum of appeal (High Court versus Court of Session) arising from the nature of the jurisdiction and powers conferred upon the Magistrate (Presidency Magistrate versus Judicial Magistrate of the First Class) does not amount to discrimination or unequal dealing by the executive. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were arrested for conspiracy to smuggle gold in violation of customs and foreign exchange regulations. The State Government appointed a Special Judicial Magistrate with jurisdiction over two local areas and conferred upon him the powers of a Presidency Magistrate for the trial of the specific case. The petitioners sought a transfer of the trial to a court closer to their residence, citing inconvenience. Upon rejection by the lower court and the High Court, they challenged the appointment and the validity of Section 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging a violation of Article 14.
Findings of Court:
The appointment of a Special Magistrate under Section 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is valid and does not infringe the right to equality. The State is competent to appoint a Special Magistrate for a specific case or local area. The inconvenience regarding the venue of the trial does not sustain a plea of discrimination as the Magistrate has the discretion to sit anywhere within the assigned local area. The difference in the appellate forum is a statutory consequence of the powers conferred upon the Magistrate and not a result of discriminatory action.
Issues: Whether the appointment of a Special Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the notification conferring specific powers and jurisdiction over multiple local areas violated the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: A law allowing the appointment of a Special Magistrate to conduct trials under normal procedure is not discriminatory. The term "case" in Section 14 encompasses both pending and future proceedings. Territorial jurisdiction over multiple areas is permissible, and the choice of the sitting place is discretionary. Differences in appellate jurisdiction arising from the rank of the Magistrate do not constitute a violation of the right to equality.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to Section 14, Code of Criminal Procedure and appointment notification as discriminatory and infringing Article 14 of the Constitution — Plea for transfer of trial venue. (Para 2 , 6 , 7 )
3. Appointment of Special Magistrate under Section 14 CrPC for specific cases or areas is non-discriminatory — Venue of sittings is discretionary — Appeal paths depend on jurisdiction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. Vesting discretion in authority to appoint a Special Magistrate to try cases under normal procedure does not infringe the right to equality under Article 14. (Para 4 )
5. Petition dismissed. (Para 8 )
6. Does the appointment of a Special Magistrate under Section 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure violate Article 14 of the Constitution?
No. Vesting discretion in an authority to appoint a Special Magistrate to try cases entirely under the normal procedure is not regarded as discriminatory and does not infringe the fundamental right of equality before the law. (Para 4 )
7. Does the term case in Section 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure refer only to pending proceedings?
No. The words used in Section 14 mean a case which is either pending or which may be instituted after the date of the constitution of the Special Magistrate. (Para 5 )
8. Is a Magistrate required by the Code of Criminal Procedure to hold sittings at a specific place within their jurisdiction?
No. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure that enjoins upon a Magistrate the duty to hold sittings in any particular place; the location of sittings is a matter of the Magistrate's discretion. (Para 6 )
9. Does a difference in the forum of appeal based on the type of Magistrate appointed constitute discrimination?
No. Such a difference arises from the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the Magistrate and the statutory prescription for appeals, rather than unequal dealing by the executive. (Para 7 )
Judgment
SHAH, J. : Being in possession of evidence that the petitioners and others were concerned in the commission of offences of conspiracy to smuggle gold from foreign countries into the part of Deogad in the District of Ratnagiri, contrary to the provisions of the Sea Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, P. M. Kalyankar, Sub-Inspector of Customs and Central Excise arrested the petitioners and produced them before the Judicial Magistrate F Class, Deogad, on December 29,1961 the Government of Maharashtra promulgated a notification in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (as amended by Bombay Act XXIII of 1951 in its application to the State of Maharashtra) appointing Mr. V. M. Gehani to be a Special Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area comprising Greater Bombay and Ratnagiri District, and conferred upon him all the powers of a Presidency Magistrate in respect of the trial in the case involving the seizure of approximately 49,990 tolas of foreign gold and known as the Deogad Gold Seizure Case.
2. on January 10, 1962 the Government of Maharashtra gave consent in writing as required by S. 196-A sub-s. (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the institution of criminal proceedings against the petitioners and eight others for offences punishable "under S. 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with S. 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (as amended) and Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (as amended) and S. 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with S. 8(1) and S. 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (as amended)". Therefore H. R. Jokhi, Assistant Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Marine and Prevention Division, Collectorate of Central Excise, Bombay instituted a complaint in the Court of the Special Magistrate appointed under the Notification dated December 29, 1961 against 16 persons (including the petitioners) alleging that they were parties to a conspiracy at Bombay, Janjira, Dabhol and Deogad (the latter three places being in the District of Ratnagiri) and other places to smuggle large quantities of gold into India, with a view to evade or attempt to evade payment of duty thereon and to evade or attempt to evade the prohibitions and restrictions in force relating thereto during the period from about October 1959 to the end of April 1961 or thereabout in breach of the provision of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and that the said persons had in pursuance of the "conspiracy and with continuing purpose and design" in or about the month of April 1961 acquired or were concerned in importing and acquiring possession, contrary to the Sea Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, gold totaling 49,990 tolas valued at over Rupees 70,00,000/-. The petitioners applied to the Special Magistrate that they be tried at Deogad or at Ratnagiri the headquarters of the District, for they were permanent residents of Deogad carrying on their respective occupations at Deogad, that they had already made their individual arrangements for their defence at Deogad and that it would be just and convenient that their trial should take place in the District of Ratnagiri. The Magistrate rejected their application. The petitioners then moved the High Court of Judicature at Bombay praying for an order that the case against the petitioners be transferred for trial to the court of some Judicial Magistrate at Deogad or at Ratnagiri competent to try the case, in the alternative the petitioners prayed that the Special Magistrate Mr. Gehani be directed to try the said case either at Deogad or at Ratnagiri at which place all facilities were available. The High Court dismissed their application. The petitioners then moved this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction quashing the Notification dated December 29, 1961 issued by the Governm
