S. 12 of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Amending Act, 1952 bars the allotment of any case that was pending on the date of the commencement of the Ordinance, i.e., on 9/04/1952.

Judgment

AYYANGAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by special leave preferred by the State of West Bengal against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta dated 9/05/1958 in Criminal Revision Case No. 1128 of 1957

( 2 ) THE three respondents are alleged to have committed the offences with which they are charged in September 1050 and though 12 years have passed by since then no step has been taken beyond the issue of notices to them. This delay has been caused by conflicting views which have been entertained from time to time about the Court having jurisdiction to try the respondents-whether it is the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, or the Judge of the Special Court constituted under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts ). Act, 1949. The judgment of the High Court now under appeal has held that the judge of the Special Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial but that the Chief Presidency Magistrate before whom a charge-sheet in respect of the offences alleged against the respondents had been laid in January 1951 had alone jurisdiction to try the case. The State which has come up in appeal against this order contends that on a construction of the relevant statutes and other matters to which we shall refer, it was the Special Judge who had the jurisdiction to try the case.

( 3 ) TO appreciate the contentions raised in the appeal it would be necessary to state at least in broad outline the several stages of this proceeding.

( 4 ) THE first respondent was at the relevant date, which was some time towards the latter part of 1950, the Sub Postmaster in a post office in the town of Calcutta. The Special Police Establishment, Calcutta, received information that in certain post offices in Calcutta, including that in which the first respondent was the Sub-Postmaster, systematic misappropriation of Government monies was taking place by, inter alia, the affixing of used postage stamps. The police devised a plan by which they had a foot-constable appointed as a Packer in the Sub Post Office in order to watch the happenings there, and thereafter on information furnished by him a raid was conducted in September 1959 and the first respondent as well as respondents 2 and 3 who were respectively the Money Order clerk and the Registration clerk in the said Post Office were arrested.

( 5 ) IT is not necessary to set out the details of the charges against the accused except to state that they included offences under S. 409 and S. 120-B/409 of the Indian Penal Code but we shall proceed to narrate briefly the matters that transpired which have contributed to keep these proceedings pending these 12 years. After the police completed the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted on 16-1-1951 to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, charging the three accused with offences under S. 120-B read with S. 409 of the Indian Penal Code etc. and S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case was registered in his Court as Crime Case No. 136 of 1951 and the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence but before he proceeded any further notification was issued by the Government of West Bengal on 1/02/1951 under S. 4 (1) of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 (which for convenience we shall refer to as the Act) allotting the case for trail to the Special Court at Alipore. When the Magistrate was informed of this allotment, he passed an order on 16/02/1951 in these terms:"under Government Notification dated 1-2-1951 this case has been allotted to the Special Judge, Alipore. The accused are to appear before him on 5-3-1951 at 10-30 A. M. Send this record to the Special Judge in the meantime. "5a. Before the Special Judge took any step in proceeding with the case, the first respondent made an application before the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution impugning the Constitutional validity of S. 4 (1) of the act on the ground that it was violative of Art. 14 of the Constituti