High Court Of Calcutta
Dibyendu Bhusan Dutta
KAMAL CHATTERJEE - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. R. 3081 Of 1997
Decided On : 12/02/1997
CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST - SPECIAL COURTS - JURISDICTION - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - WEST BENGAL CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (SPECIAL COURTS) ACT, 1949 - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
A public servant was accused of committing criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case was initially taken up by a Magistrate, who later transferred it to a Special Court under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Special Court had exclusive jurisdiction to try the case, as the offense fell under the schedule of offenses triable by Special Courts under the West Bengal Act. The Court further held that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which also provided for the trial of certain offenses by Special Judges, did not apply to the case, as the offense in question was not specified in the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Special Court had jurisdiction to try the case. 2. Whether sanction for prosecution was required under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949, conferred exclusive jurisdiction on Special Courts to try certain offenses, including criminal breach of trust committed by a public servant. 2. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, did not apply to the case, as the offense in question was not specified in the Act.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the revisional application filed by the petitioner, upholding the impugned order of the Magistrate transferring the case to the Special Court.
( 1 ) THE instant application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 15. 9. 97 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Second Court, Sreerampore in G. R. Case No. 1336 of 1995 corresponding to Uttarpara P. S. Case No. 203 dated 5. 11. 95.
( 2 ) THE petitioner was posted as ward master in the Uttarpara General Hospital in the year 1995. On 5. 11. 95, a private individual (the opposite party No. 1) lodged a complaint with the O. C. Uttarpara Police Station alleging that while he was passing along the street, he noticed the petitioner bringing out some articles such as tin and polythene made empty gerican and sealed saline bottles from the campus of Uttarpara General Hospital and that a rickshaw puller was also present there at that time. It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner was trying to sell the said articles of the hospital without any authority. On the basis of the said complaint, Uttarpara police case was started under sections 409, 120b IPC against the petitioner and under sections 411, 120b IPC against another who is not a public servant.
( 3 ) AFTER investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner under sections 409 and 120b IPC and against the co-accused under sections 411 and 120b IPC and on 17. 7. 96, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on the basis of that charge-sheet. Thereafter, on 30. 8. 96, the learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner and the co-accused under sections 409, 120b IPC. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and the learned Magistrate posted the case for evidence on 17. 10. 96. On 17. 10. 96, an application was filed on behalf of the prosecution before the Maistrate for transfer of the case to the court of Special Judge, Hoogly, for trial on the ground that the petitioner is a public servant. The petitioner opposed the prayer, but after hearing both parties, the learned Magistrate by his impugned order was pleased to transfer the case from his court to the court of Special Judge, Hoogly with the direction upon the petitioner to be present in the Special Court on 30. 9. 97.
( 4 ) IN challenging the legality of the impugned order of the learned Magistrate in the present revision, Mr. Asimes Goswami, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that a case becomes triable by a Special Court only when sanction is necessary and is obtained and since in the instant case, the alleged offence was not committed in course of discharge of the official duties of the petitioner, a public servant, sanction was not necessary and the learned Magistrate was quite competent to take cognizance and try the case and should not have transferred the case to the Special Court.
( 5 ) MR. Sudipta Moitra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, on the otherhand, supported the impugned order of the Magistrate. His contention is that the offence concerned having been committed by a public servant was exclusively triable by a Special Court within the meaning of section 2 of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 and that for such trial no sanction would be necessary and as such, the learned Magistrate was quite justified in transferring the case to the Special Court. Mr. Moitra referred to the decisions reported in 1986 Cri. LJ. 1248 : Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W. B. v. Usha Ranjan and 1995 (1) CHN 264: P. K. Dubey v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
( 6 ) IN reply, Mr. Goswami contended that the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 stands vertically repealed by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. His contention is that after the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 came into force, the Special Judges appointed under section 2 of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 ceased to have jurisdiction and all Special Judges functioning in West Bengal are funct
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.