I.A. Ansari, J.

1. With the help of this petition, made under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is accused in G.R. Case No. 135/2011, arising out at Dimapur East Police Station Case No. 73/2011, under Section500/506/507/509 IPC, read with Section 66A/66E/67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I. T. Act'), has sought to get aside and quashed the First Information Report, which has given rise to the case aforementioned, and the Charge-Sheet, which has been submitted on completion of investigation into the case.

2. I have heard Mr. H. R. A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Ms. T. Khro, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland, appearing for the respondent No.2. Heard also Mr. H. Buragohain, learned Central Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned counsel, appearing as amicus curiae.

3. Making this Court traverse through various provisions of the I.T. Act, Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, contends that Section 81 of the Act makes it clear that the I.T. Act has been given overriding effect over other penal enactments including the Code of Criminal Procedure. Taking a queue from Section 81, that the I. T. Act has an overriding effect, as indicated hereinbefore, Mr. Choudhury refers to Section 46 of the I. T. Act to show that the power to try an offence, under the I. T. Act, rests with the adjudicatory authorities mentioned in Chapter IX of the I.T. Act.

4. While considering the above submission, made on behalf of the accused-petitioner, it needs to be noted that Chapter IX runs under the heading, 'Penalties, Compensation and Adjudication'. Sections 43, 43A, 44, 45, 46 and 47, contained in Chapter IX, embody a scheme for adjudication of various disputes/controversies, which may arise, leading to compensation, penalty, award, etc., for the damage, which may be sustained. Chapter IX does not set any condition precedent for attracting the provisions of Chapter IX, which embodies various offences, which the I. T. Act creates.

5. The question, therefore, which falls for determination is: Who is the competent authority to try offences under Chapter XI of the I.T. Act?

6. There can be no dispute that the I.T. Act is a special Act and, in terms of the provisions of Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Section 81 of the I.T. Act, the offences, under the I.T. Act shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and, otherwise, dealt with according to the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, subject to, however, any provision (s), which may be contained in the I.T. Act, indicating otherwise.

7. The First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure divides the entire Code into two parts, viz., Part-I and Part-II. Part-I deals with offences under the Indian Penal Code and specifies as to whether a given offence is cognizable or non-cognizable, boilable or non-boilable, and who is competent to try the offence, whether a Magistrate or a Court of Session. Part-II deals with other laws, which obviously, means and includes special penal acts, such as, the I.T. Act. Part-II classifies the offences into cognizable, non-cognizable, boilable and non-boilable, depending, substantially, upon the length of imprisonment prescribed for a given offence. Even the question as to who can try an offence, under a special law, is answered by Part-II on the basis of the length of imprisonment prescribed. For instance, if an offence is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only, such an offence is non-cognizable, boilable and triable by any Magistrate; whereas, if an offence is punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards but not more than seven years, then, the offence is cognizable, non-boilable and is triable by a Magistrate of First Class and, if an offence is punishable with death