Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS. – Appellant(s)
Versus
RANJIT KUMAR SAHA & ANR. – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 5136 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.18113 of 2018)
Decided On : 01-07-2019
(a) Interpretation of statute - Effect of repeal - S.R.O. 318 issued under Assam Rifles Act, 1941 - Will not have effect after repeal of the Act and promulgation of the 2006 Act. (Para 10)
(b) Interpretation of statute - Repugnancy - Section 4 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - offences u/s 7 are triable by Special Judge, PC Act - Sections 55, 56 and 2 of Assam Rifles Act, 2006 providing that offences under PC Act can be tried by GARC - PC Act, 1988 cannot be deemed to be repealed by Act, 2006 by implication - Both Acts should be read harmoniously. (Para 12)
(c) Interpretation of statute - Repugnancy - There is a presumption against repeal by implication - However, when the provisions of the later Act are so inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of the earlier Act that the two cannot stand together, repeal of earlier statute by the later statute can be inferred - But, if the two can be read together and some application can be made of the words in the earlier Act, repeal will not be inferred. (Para 14)
(2003) 7 SCC 389; (1964) 2 SCR 87; (1967) 3 SCR 399; (1971) 1 SCC 442; (1992) 1 SCC 335; (1989) 3 SCC 537 - Relied upon
(d) Interpretation of statute - PC Act consolidates and amends laws relating to the prevention of corruption - The Assam Rifles Act on the other hand consolidates laws relating to governance of Assam Rifles and restricted to members of Assam Rifles - Held section 4 of PC Act and section 55 of Act, 2006, apparently in conflict, can be construed harmoniously - There is no real conflict between the provisions of the two Statutes and they can run in parallel lines. (Para 16)
(e) Interpretation of statute - Jurisdiction exercisable by the GARC under Section 55 of the 2006 Act - Can be treated as an exception to the provisions of the PC Act - Held, GARC has jurisdiction to try offences under the PC Act against the members of the Assam Rifles. (Para 17, 18)
(1984) Supp SCC 28 - Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The first Respondent was working as Subedar (Building and Road) and the second Respondent was a Naib Subedar (building and Road) in Headquarter-6 Sector, Assam Rifles, Kamrup, Assam. A sting operation was carried out by a contractor, Mr. C.C. Mathew, followed by a telecast in Matrabhumi News, a Malayalam Television channel and ‘Tehelka.com’ on 24/25th September, 2014 alleging corruption in the Assam Rifles. On the basis of the said news, a Court of Inquiry was convened by Headquarters, IGAR (East.), Assam Rifles. A Court of Inquiry was conducted at Srikona, Silchar, Assam during which the Summary of Evidence was recorded. A charge-sheet was issued by the Convening Authority to the Respondents under Section 55 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with an alternate charge under Section 49 of the 2006 Act. The General Assam Rifles Court (GARC) was convened on 10.11.2016.
GARC rejected the preliminary objections raised by the Respondents under Section 139 of the 2006 Act. The Respondents filed a Writ Petition. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and declared that the GARC cannot try an offence punishable under the PC Act involving a person governed by the 2006 Act. The appeal filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
GARC has jurisdiction to try offences under the PC Act against the members of the Assam Rifles.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted.
1. The first Respondent was working as Subedar (Building and Road) and the second Respondent was a Naib Subedar (building and Road) in Headquarter-6 Sector, Assam Rifles, Kamrup, Assam. A sting operation was carried out by a contractor, Mr. C.C. Mathew, followed by a telecast in Matrabhumi News, a Malayalam Television channel and ‘Tehelka.com’ on 24/25th September, 2014 alleging corruption in the Assam Rifles. On the basis of the said news, a Court of Inquiry was convened by Headquarters, IGAR (East.), Assam Rifles by an order dated 29.09.2014 which was later amended on 01.10.2014 in respect of the composition of the Court of Inquiry. A Court of Inquiry was conducted at Srikona, Silchar, Assam during which the Summary of Evidence was recorded. A charge-sheet was issued by the Convening Authority to the Respondents under Section 55 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “2006 Act”) for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “PCAct’) with an alternate charge under Section 49 of the 2006 Act. The General Assam Rifles Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘the GARC’) was convened on 10.11.2016.
2. The Respondents raised certain preliminary objections before the GARC which are:
1. During the Court of Enquiry and Summary of Evidence, no opportunity to cross -examine the complainant of the case was given to the Respondents.
2. The composition of the GARC was in violation of Section 90 of the 2006 Act inasmuch as the members of the GARC did not have the required rank to be members of the GARC.
3. The GARC cannot try a case punishable under the PC Act.
3. The GARC rejected the preliminary objections raised by the Respondents under Section 139 of the 2006 Act by an order dated 09.01.2017. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the Respondents filed a Writ Petition in the Guwahati High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and declared that the GARC cannot try an offence punishable under the PC Act involving a person governed by the 2006 Act. The appeal filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court, aggrieved by which, the Appellants have filed this appeal.
4. The Respondents contended before the High Court that the GARC lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case against them as the jurisdiction to try an offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act was only with the Special Court established/appointed under the PC Act. After examining the definitions of ‘civil offence’, ‘criminal court’ and ‘member of the force’ in Sections 2 (e), (h) and (p) respectively of the 2006 Act, the learned Single Judge of the High Court held that an offence triable by a criminal court is within the jurisdiction of the GARC. However, the High Court was of the opinion that only a special Judge appointed by the Central Government or the State Government under the PC Act shall have the jurisdiction to try all offences punishable under the PC Act. The High Court was of the considered view that the jurisdiction exercisable by the Courts or other ‘Authorities’ mentioned in Section 25 is not affected by the PC Act. The High Court observed that the 2006 Act is not included in Section 25 (1) of the PC Act and, therefore the ‘members of the force’ shall be governed by the PC Act. Finally, the High Court declared that the GARC cannot proceed to adjudicate the case against the Respondents under the PC Act.
5. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge by reiterating that an offence punishable under the PC Act is triable only by a special Judge in view of Section 4 of the PC Act. For the removal of doubts, it was laid down in Section 25(2) of the PC Act that the Court of a special Judge shall be deemed to be a Court of ordinary criminal justice for the purpose of any law referred in Section 25(1) of the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
