Special Courts constituted under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949, have the authority to take cognizance of offenses without adhering to the procedure outlined in Section 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Judgment-

AYYANGAR

( 1 ) THIS appeal raises for consideration the proper construction of Sections 4 and 5 of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 (Act XXI of 1949) to which we shall refer as the Act. The preamble to the Act recites that it was enacted to provide for the speedy trial of the offences specified in the Schedule. Sec. 2 empowers the State Government to constitute by notification in the Official Gazette one or more special courts. S. 4 enacts, to extract only the portion relevant to this appeal:

"s. 4 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or in any other law the offences specified in the Schedule shall be triable by Special Courts only. . . . . . . . . . . . .

( 2 ) THE distribution amongst Special Courts of cases involving offences specified in the Schedule to be tried by them, shall be made by the State Government. "

THIS is followed by S. 5 reading again confining ourselves to the portion material for this appeal :

"s 5 (1) A special Court may take cognizance of offences without the accused being committed to his Court for trial, and in trying accused persons, shall follow the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates, instituted otherwise than on a police report.

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

2. Save as provided in Sub-section (1) or sub-sec. 1 (a), the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, shall, so far as they are not inconsistent with the present Act, apply to the proceedings of a Special Court; and for the purposes of the said provisions, a Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Session trying cases without a Jury, and a person conduction a prosecution before a Special Court shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor. "

(2) As recited in the preamble and in S 4, there is a Schedule setting out the offence which are triable solely by these Special Courts.

( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to the present appeal may now be stated. The police filed a report before the Chief Presidency Magistrate at Calcutta in February, 1958 charging ten accused persons including the appellant, of offences under S. 120-B read with S. 409 and S. 477, Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, by an order of the State Government dated 1/06/1959 notified in the Official Gazette the said case was assigned to the Calcutta Additional Special Court under S. 4 (2) of the Act, and in the said communication the names and description of the accused as well as the offences which they were charged were set out. Sometime later amendments were made to this Notification but nothing turns on them. On 26/09/1959 the Investigating Officer of the enforcement Branch, Calcutta, filed a petition before the Special Judge praying that the Judge might be pleased to take cognizance of the case which had been allotted to him and issue process against the several accused and pass such orders as he might deem just. On the same day ( 26/09/1959), the Additional Special Judge took cognizance of the offences and issued notices to the accused persons fixing a date for their appearance.

( 4 ) ON receipt of this notice the appellant made an application before the Special Judge stating that the initiation of the proceedings against him based on the petition of the Investigating Officer Enforcement Branch, Calcutta, was not proper and legal and that in consequence the Special Judge was incompetent to proceed in the matter. The Additional Special Judge rejected that -petition. The appellant then moved the High Court of Calcutta in revision, urging the same ground namely that the Special Judge could not take cognizance of the offence on the "complaint " of the police officer -and had therefore no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the case. At this stage, it is necessary to mention that in two earlier decisions of the Calcutta High Court the view had been h