Judgement

JUDGMENT :- Special leave granted.

This appeal by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the CBI) arises from the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta dated 22-12-1995, allowing criminal revision filed by respondent No. 1 and quashing the proceedings of Special Case No. 1 of 1988, pending before the learned 2nd Special Judge at Alipore.

2. On the basis of an FIR, registered on 28-11-1987 by the CBI on the complaint of Subodh Chandra De, a trap was laid by the officers of the CBI on 30-11-1987 and respondent No. 1 Shri Subodh Kumar Dutta was allegedly caught accepting a bribe of Rs. 700/-. The CBI filed a charge sheet against respondent No. 1 for an offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on 11-2-1988, after completion of the investigation. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Special Judge under the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949 on 9-7-1988.

3. It is an admitted case of the parties that the special Court which took cognizance of the offence had been consituted under the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949 and not under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, After cognizance had been taken by the learned Special Judge, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 came to be repealed by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, with effect from 9-9-1988. Respondent No. 1 thereupon filed a criminal revision petition in the High Court under Sections 401/482, Cr. P.C., seeking quashing of the proceedings in the case pending against him before the Special Court in which the principal ground raised was the violation of the fundamental right of the accused to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. During the arguments, it appears the High Court also permitted respondent No. 1 to raise a plea that the Special Court trying the bribe case had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as that Court had not been constituted pursuant to Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which had repealed the 1947 Act. The learned Single Judge appears to have been impressed with this submission made on behalf of respondent No. 1. It appears that none appeared for the State before the learned Single Judge at the time of hearing of the petition.

4. The learned Single Judge noticed the provisions of Section 26 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which reads as follows:

"Special Judges appointed under Act 46 of 1952 to be special Judges appointed under this Act.

Every special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, for any area or areas and is holding office on the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be a special Judge appointed under Section 3 of this Act for that area or areas and, accordingly, on and from such commencement, every such Judge shall continue to deal with all the proceedings pending before him on such commencement in accordance with the provisions of this Act."

and opined that the cognizance taken by the Special Court on 9-7-1988 under the 1947 Act, was not saved. The learned Single Judge, therefore held that the cognizance had not been taken in accordance with law and without referring to the merits of the other contentions raised in the revisions petition, allowed the same and quashed the proceedings pending in the Special Court in Special Court Case No. 1 of 1988. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

5. Mr. Bhatt, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellant, CBI concedes that the Special Court which had taken cognizance, had been constituted under the West Bengal Act of 1949 and not under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1952 but submits that both on the date of the commission of offence i.e. 30-11-1987 and on the date when the cognizance was taken by the Special Court i.e. 9-7-1988, the 1947 Act was very much in force and the Special Court had the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence.