The State of Assam has appealed from an order of Mr. B. R. Das, Magistrate 1st Class, Mangaldai, dated 25-8-1952 by which he acquitted Naramud­din Ahmed and Roisuddin Kabiraj finding them not guilty of offences with which they had been charged. Roisuddin has died. The appeal against him has abated. It is now directed against the acquittal of Naramuddin Ahmed alone.

(2) The proceeding was initiated on a complaint by Md. Foimuddin Gaobura. The complaint was under Ss. 342/161/381, I. P. C. It embodies a very brief statement of the prosecution case. It discloses that the two accused Naramuddin and Roisuddin called him (complainant) from Tengani Hatkhola on 5-3-1951 tied his hands and kept him in confinement for about an hour in front of the shophouse belonging to one Dhuler Pathak. Roisud-diu, accused, got Rs. 200/- in cash from his father Jaimuddin and released him.

(3) The complaint was put in on 7th May 1951, the occurrence was alleged to have taken place on 5-5-1951 which was a Saturday. The complainant was examined on his complaint. He then stated that the accused had called him to the court­yard of Pathak. They had two constables with them whom they asked to arrest him. His hands were then tied down with a rope. F'aimuddm's father followed him to this place. He was called away on one side by the two accused.

They demanded Rs. 200/- from him in consi­deration of his release. Out of fear, his father paid Rs. 200/- to Roisuddiu and also served tea and sweets to the two accused. He was then released and went away. He stated that his witnesses were Jaimuddin, Toimuddin, Hafizuddin, Jalal and others.

(4) The Magistrate held a preliminary enquiry on 12th May at Tengani. He examined witnesses produced by the complainant, some court witnesses, the relevant papers and also the place of occurrence. He also directed the complainant to produce other witnesses on 14th May, 1951. On 14th May, the complainant expressed his inability to produce any more witnesses stating that Roisuddin was threa­tening the witnesses with harm & they were afraid of coming to Court. He then ordered the accused to be summoned and wrote to the Superintendent of Police, Darrang, for sanctioning the prosecution of A. S. I. Naramuddin Ahmed.

On 3-7-1952, the prosecution case was closed. The accused were examined. They declined to pro­duce any witnesses. The case was fixed for argu­ment on 19-7-1952. Arguments were heard on this date and 31st July was the date fixed for judgment. On three subsequent dates the judgment could not be delivered. It was not ready. It was finally de­livered on 25-8-1952 when the accused were ac­quitted.

(5) The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 was passed on 28-7-1952 after the arguments in the case were heard. Mr. Medhi, the learned Govt. Advocate contends that on 28-7-1952 when the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 came into force, the case was pending in the court of the Magistrate as judgment had not yet been delivered. He refers first to S. 7 of the Act which provides as follows:

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898) or in any other law, the offences specified in sub-s. (1) of S. 6 shall be triable by Special Judges only." He points out that Nanamuddito, Assistant Sub-Inspector had been charged under S. 164, I. P. C. pad also under S. 161, I. P. C. The offence under S. 161 which was the subject-matter of the trial was one of the offences specified in sub-s. (1) of S. 6 and had become triable by a Special Judge only on 28th July. The learned Magistrate thus lost jurisdiction. The judgment he delivered therefore is without jurisdiction.

He also argued that S. 7 of the Act has to be read with S. 10 which provides that all cases triable by special Judge under S. 7 which immediately be­fore the commencement of this Act were pending before any Magistrate shall on such commencement be forwarded for trial to the Special Judge having jurisdiction over such cases.

His contention is that t