Back
2003(2) Crimes 43 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Karnataka High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu & G.P. Mathur, JJ.
Dy. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports—Appellants
versus
Roshanlal Agarwal & Ors. —Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1656-1663 of 1995
Decided on 5-3-2003
Held : There is absolutely no scope for holding that the Special Court (Economic Offences) which was presided by a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class lost the jurisdiction to try offences under the Indian Penal Code. (Para 7)
The High Court has gone to the extent of saying that as the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports had not been examined as a witness, the procedure prescribed by Section 200 Cr. P.C. had not been followed and, therefore, the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences was illegal. With respect, we find it difficult to comprehend the aforesaid reasoning of the High Court. (Para 11)
Held consequently : For the reasons discussed above, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court is wholly unsustainable in law and must be set aside. (Para 12)
But held : In view of the findings recorded by us, the learned Magistrate has to proceed with the trial of the accused-respondents. Shri Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel has, however, submitted that the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 has since been repealed and in the departmental proceedings taken under the aforesaid Act, the Central Government has passed orders in favour of the respondents and, therefore, their trial before the criminal court at this stage would be an exercise in futility. He has placed before us copies of the orders passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade on August 16, 1993 and also by the Appellate Committee Cell, Ministry of Commerce, Government of India on March 13, 1997 by which the appeals preferred by the respondents were allowed by the Appellate Committee and the accused-respondents were exonerated. Having regard to the material existing against the respondents and the reasons and findings given in the aforesaid orders, we are of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by the trial of the accused-respondents in the criminal court at this stage. The proceedings of the criminal cases instituted against the accused-respondents on the basis of the complaints filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports are, therefore, quashed. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. (Paras 13 and 14)
Cases referred :
1. U.P. Pollution Control Board v. M/s. Mohan Meakins Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1456. (Para 9)
2. Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2000 SC 522. (Para 9)
Judgment
G.P. Mathur, J.—The Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports filed eight complaints against several persons including the respondents herein for their prosecution under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 5 of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The respondents (accused Nos.3, 4 and 5) filed applications under Section 245 Cr. P.C. in all the cases praying for their discharge. These applications were rejected by the Special Court (Economic Offences) on February 24, 1986 and the revisions preferred against the said order were also dismissed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge on July 20, 1989. Thereafter, the Respondents filed petitions under Section 482 Cr. P.C. which were allowed by the High Court of Karnataka by the judgment and order dated August 7, 1995 and the orders passed by the Special Court (Economic Offences) and the Sessions Judge were set aside and the applications filed under Section 245 Cr. P.C. were allowed and the respondents were discharged. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports has filed these appeals by special leave.
2. The main ground on which the petitions under Section 482 Cr. P.C. have been allowed by the High Court is that the Special Court (Economic Offences), Bangalore, had no jurisdiction to try the offences under the Indian Penal Code or any other law except the offences under the Acts mentioned in the Schedule to the Notification by which the said Special Court was created. The other grounds are that the complainant was not examined as a witness by the Special Court as required by Section 200 Cr. P.C. and that the Presiding Officer of the Special Court had not applied his judicial mind to the complaint before taking cognizance of the offences.
3. The Government of Karnataka, exercising powers conferred by proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 read with Section 2(j) of Code of Criminal Procedure and in consultation with the High Court of Karnataka issued a notification on September 10, 1982 for establishing a Special Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class called the Special Court (Economic Offences), for the trial of offences under the Acts specified in the Schedule having jurisdiction within the local area of the revenue district of Bangalore including the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. The Schedule mentioned 12 Acts including the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, Income Tax Act, Customs Act, FERA and Central Excise and Salt Act, etc. The High Court accepted the contention of the accused-respondents herein that in view of the aforesaid notification the Special Court (Economic Offences) could only try offences under the Acts mentioned in the Schedule but had no jurisdiction to try offences under the Indian Penal Code.
4. Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the view taken by the High Court is against the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and merely on account of the fact the Special Court had been created by issuing a notification under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the aforesaid Code, the said Court would not be divested of the jurisdiction to try offences under the Indian Penal Code. Shri Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused-respondents has, on the other hand, submitted that the effect of the notification was that the jurisdiction of the Special Court was confined to the offences under the Acts mentioned in the Schedule and it could not try any other offence including that under the Indian Penal Code.
5. In our opinion, the plea raised by the accused-respondents is plainly against the scheme and provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ''the Code''). Clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Code provides that where, under any law, other than the Code, the functions exercisable by a Magistrate relate to matters which involve the appreciation or sifting of evidence or the formulation of any decisi
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
