Back
2003(1) Crimes 230 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Karnataka High Court)
Umesh C. Banerjee & B.N. Agrawal, JJ.
Vasant Arjunrao Bhandak —Appellant
versus
State of Karnataka —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1138 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1349 of 2002)
Decided on 12-11-2002
For the Appellant :S.S. Javali, Sr. Advocate, S.K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni and Vijay Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Sanjay R. Hegde and Satya Mitra, Advocates.
Important point
Issuance of a notification under Section 26 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 appointing the Special Judge for any specified area to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 would also hold good for purpose of Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well.
Headnote:Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952—Section 26—Notification under—Appointing the Special Judge for any specified area to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947—Whether that judge would also hold good for the purpose of Section 3 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well? (Yes)—Consequently issuance of fresh notification appointing the judges, does not and cannot arise—The Principal Sessions Judge Belgaum has the authority and jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—High Court was right in dismissing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings pending before said Judge—Appeal dismissed (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Section 26 real with 30(2)—Special Judges appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 to be special Judges appointed under 1988 Act).
Held (relying on 1966(2) SCR 158) : It is on the above perspective that the reasoning put forth by the High Court ought also to be noticed :
"The provision in Section 26 clearly postulates that any notification issued by the State Govt. u/s 26 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, appointing the Spl. Judge for any specified area, to try the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, would hold good for the purpose of Section 3 of the Act of 1988 as well. The ambit of Section 26 does not admit narrow interpretation so as to restrict its area of operation only to those cases under the old Act of 1897 which were actually pending before the Spl. Judge as on the date of commencement of the New Act of 1988. Therefore, the State Government Notification dated 19.11.88 is to be held as a valid notification for the purpose of Section 3 of the Act of 1988, and that the Prl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, who is appointed thereunder as the Spl. Judge has jurisdiction and is competent to try the offences under the Act. The conclusion so arrived at by the learned Trial Judge by his impugned order, is, therefore, entitled to be upheld."
On consideration of the above and having regard to the provisions of law as enunciated hereinbefore, in particular Section 26 thereof, the question of there being a contra view, apart from what has been observed above does not and cannot arise and consequently issuance of fresh notification appointing the Judges, does not and cannot arise and thus the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum has the authority and jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The other issue though argued before the High Court as regards the status of the Investigation Officer by reason of provision of Section 17(c) has not been seriously raised and we also accordingly need not detain ourselves on that score. Suffice it however to say that negation of such a contention does have our concurrence. On the wake of the aforesaid, this appeal thus fails and is dismissed. (Paras 10, 11 and 12)
Judgment
Banerjee, J.—Leave granted.
2. A short but an interesting question of law falls for consideration in this appeal against the order of the High Court of Karnataka, wherein the High Court dismissed the Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings pending before the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Special Case No. 22/94 : the question of law noticed above pertains to whether issuance of a notification under Section 26 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, appointing the Special Judge for any specified area to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 would also hold good for the purpose of Section 3 of the Act of 1988 (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) as well?
3. Adverting to the factual score briefly at this juncture it appears that the Appellant being charge-sheeted by the Respondent Authorities was prosecuted in the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Special Case No. 22/94 for the offences punishable under-Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The factual score further depicts that during the pendency of the proceedings the appellant filed an application under Sections 3, 4 and 17 of the Act of 1988 read with Sections 173, 190 and 216 of the Cr.P.C . praying therein to discharge him, on the ground that the learned trial Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the case against him since the appointment of the learned Judge cannot be termed or said to be an appointment as a Special Judge within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act of 1988. It was further contended that in any event the investigating officer who filed the charge-sheet, was not duly authorised under Section 17 to investigate into the matter. The learned trial Judge however rejected the petition
4. The appellant thereafter moved the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings upon setting aside the order as passed by the learned trial Judge. The High Court, however, with a detailed and reasoned judgment negated such a plea and consequently the petition was dismissed. It is by reason of the dismissal of the matter by the High Court, this Court was moved under Article 136 of the Constitution and upon hearing the submissions, this Court thought it fit to dispose of the petition at the admission stage itself.
5. Coming to the matter under consideration, certain statutory provisions ought to be noticed at the initial stage and reference to Section 26 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, would be apposite and which reads as below :
"26. 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 of 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."
6. It is the appellant's definite contention that the applicability of Section 26 is restrictive in its nature and thus applicable only to prior proceedings pending before the Special Judge on the commencement of the Act. Mr. S.S. Javali, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that any other construction would render the legislative intent a complete otiose and thus a fresh notification under Section 3 of the Act is required to enable the appointment of Special Judges for proceeding with the new cases under the Act. We are, however, unable to record our concurrence therewith. In order to have proper efficacy to the statutory intent the Act shall have to be read as a whole and introduction of Section 26 in the Statute Book has brought into existence a deeming fiction which have to be given effect to and any contra vie
