IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. C. AGRAWAL, B. L. YADAV
BHARAT TRADERS - Appellant
Versus
SPL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALLAHABAD - Respondents
C. M. W. 4827 Of 1984
Decided On : 02/25/1988
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 11 - SPECIAL COURT - VALIDITY - NOTIFICATION ESTABLISHING SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF ECONOMIC OFFENCES THROUGHOUT THE STATE - VALIDITY - CHALLENGE - GROUNDS - SINGLE COURT FOR ENTIRE STATE - NO POWER TO CREATE SPECIAL COURT FOR CLASS OF CASES FOR ENTIRE STATE - NOT OPERATIVE IN METROPOLITAN AREAS - VIOLATIVE OF JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATES - DISCRIMINATORY - INTERFERES WITH PERSONAL LIBERTY - CONSTITUTIONALITY - ARTICLES 14 AND 21 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the validity of a notification issued under Section 11(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, establishing a Special Court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class for all districts of Uttar Pradesh with its place of sitting at Allahabad, to try cases arising under 12 specified enactments in any local area within the State.
Finding of the Court:
The Court upheld the validity of the notification, holding that the State Government had the power to establish one Special Court for the trial of all cases at one place, which the State Government may do after consultation with the High Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government had the power to establish one Special Court of a Judicial Magistrate laying down that the Court alone will have jurisdiction to try any case or a class of cases exclusively? 2. Whether the notification contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the notification contravenes Article 21 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers the State Government to establish one Special Court for trying of all cases at one place, which the State Government may do after consultation with the High Court. 2. The Court held that the notification does not contravene Article 14 of the Constitution as the classification made by the notification is reasonable and has a rational relation to the object of the legislation. 3. The Court held that the notification does not contravene Article 21 of the Constitution as the dominant purpose of the notification is to achieve speedy determination of cases and the Special Magistrate will have expertised knowledge.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the notification.
( 1 ) THIS petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Bharat Traders, a partnership firm, having its head office at Kanpur and 4 others for quashing of the notification No. 84 Bha Sa (2)/vii A. N. 225-79 dated Lucknow, Sept. 16, 1982, issued in exercise of powers under provisio to sub-sec. (1) of S. 11 of the Cr. P. C, 1973. The notification is as under :-"in exercise of the powers under proviso to sub-sec. (1) of S. 11 of the Cr. P. C, 1973 (Act II of 1974), the Governor, after consultation with the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, is pleased to establish with effect from the date of publication of this Notification in the Gazette, a Special Court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class for all districts of Uttar Pradesh with its place of sitting at Allahabad, to try cases arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule below in any local area within the State of Uttar Pradesh. "
( 2 ) THE Schedule below the notification mentions 12 Acts to be covered by it. The petitioner have challenged the validity of the notification on the ground that:- (i) one single court cannot be established for the entire State as entire State is not a local area; (ii) the State does not have power under proviso to S. 11 (1), Cr. P. C, to create special court for trying a class of cases for the entire State. (iii) the notification cannot operate the metropolitan areas in the State of U. P. (iv) the notification is violative of the provisions of Chap. XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the jurisdiction of Magistrates for the trial of offences; (v) creation of a special court at Allahabad is discriminatory and is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution; and (vi) the notification interferes with the right of personal liberty conferred by Art. 21 of the Constitution.
( 3 ) THE aforesaid writ petition and several others were classified and kept in one group for arguments. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh justifying the notification. Before we deal with the arguments, we may notice that the notification dt. Aug. 7, 1987, by which the notification, referred to above, has been modified and a new special court of Special Magistrate, First Class, has been created at Kanpur. The relevant portion of this notification is quoted below :-"in exercise of the powers under proviso to sub-sec. (1) of S. 11 of the Cr. P. C. , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), read with S. 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Act No. X of 1897) and in continuation and partial modification of Government Notification No. 84, Bha. Sa (2)/vii A. N. 225/79 dt. Sept. . 16, 1982, the Governor after consultation with the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, is pleased to establish special Courts of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class as specified against each in Col. 2 of the Schedule I below with place of sitting as specified against each in column 3 and to exercise jurisdiction in the local area as specified against each in Col. 4 thereof to try cases arising under the enactments specified in the Sch. II below arising within their respective local areas".
( 4 ) SCHEDULE I gives the names of the districts which have been assigned to special Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kanpur. These districts are Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur Dehat, Sanda, Hamirpur, Jalaun, Meerut, Ghaziabad, Bulandshahr, Muzaffarnagar, Saharanpur, Dehradun, Uttar Kashi, Tehri Garhwal, Agra, Aligarh, Mathura, Etah, Mainpuri, Farrukhabad, Jhansi and Etawah.
( 5 ) THE subsequent notification provides that the case arising out of local areas of jurisdiction in Col. 4 thereof shall be tried at Kanpur. If we uphold the notification to be valid, the irresistible result would be that those cases, which have been excluded from the jurisdiction of the Special Court of Judicial Magistrate at Allahabad would be liable to be transferred to the Special Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur. The notification dt. Aug. 7, 1987, wi
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.