Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B.N. SAPRU, A.N. VARMA, JJ.
Suresh Tewari - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent
Habeas Corpus Petition No. 12533 of 1983
Decided on : Apr 16, 1984
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - JURISDICTION OF SPECIAL COURT - U. P. DACOITY AFFECTED AREAS ACT, 1983 - SECTION 5 - SPECIAL COURT CAN BE CONSTITUTED OUTSIDE THE DACOITY AFFECTED AREA - APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL JUDGE - SECTION 5(2) - QUALIFICATION - SESSIONS JUDGE OR ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - SECTION 6 - JURISDICTION OF SPECIAL COURT - EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO TRY SCHEDULED OFFENCES - CHARGE SHEET - SUBMISSION BY INSPECTOR, C. B., C.I.D. - JURISDICTION - CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT MANUAL, UNITED PROVINCES - AMENDMENT NO. 6 DATED MARCH 8, 1939 - JURISDICTION OF OFFICERS OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT EXTENDS THROUGHOUT UTTAR PRADESH - SECTION 36 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - POWERS OF STATION OFFICER CAN BE EXERCISED BY INSPECTOR, C. B., C.I.D. - POWER TO INVESTIGATE INCLUDES POWER TO SUBMIT CHARGE SHEET.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, Suresh Tewari, was detained in jail in connection with offences under Sections 397/412 IPC and Sections 25/27 Arms Act. Banda, where the offences were committed, was declared a dacoity affected area under the U. P. Dacoity Affected Area Act, 1983. The applicant challenged the jurisdiction of the Special Judge, Allahabad, to try the offences, arguing that the Special Court should be located physically within the dacoity affected area. The applicant also challenged the legality of the detention, arguing that the orders of remand were illegal and that the charge sheet was filed by an incompetent officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Special Court constituted under Section 5(1) of the U. P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983, need not be located physically within the dacoity affected area. The court also held that the appointment of the Special Judge, Allahabad, was legal as he was qualified to be appointed as a Special Judge being the Sessions Judge, Allahabad. The court further held that the detention of the applicant was legal as he was being detained under proper orders of remand by the Special Judge, Allahabad. The court also held that the charge sheet was filed by a competent officer as the Inspector, C. B., C.I.D., Allahabad, had jurisdiction to investigate the offences and submit the charge sheet.
Issues: 1. Whether the Special Court constituted under Section 5(1) of the U. P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983, must be located physically within the dacoity affected area? 2. Whether the appointment of the Special Judge, Allahabad, was legal? 3. Whether the detention of the applicant was legal? 4. Whether the charge sheet was filed by a competent officer?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 5 of the U. P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983, does not require that the Special Court constituted under Section 5(1) of the Act shall be located physically within the dacoity affected area. 2. The Special Judge, Allahabad, was qualified to be appointed as a Special Judge as he was the Sessions Judge, Allahabad. 3. The applicant was being detained under proper orders of remand by the Special Judge, Allahabad. 4. The Inspector, C. B., C.I.D., Allahabad, had jurisdiction to investigate the offences and submit the charge sheet by virtue of Amendment No. 6 dated March 8, 1939, to the Criminal Investigation Department Manual, United Provinces, and Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Final Decision: The petition for Habeas Corpus and the bail application were both dismissed.
B. N. Sapru, J.
1. This is an application for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Suresh Tewari as also a bail application filed on behalf of Suresh Tewari.
2. The applicant Suresh Tewari has been detained in jail in connection with offences under Sections 397/412 IPC, being Crime no. 33 of 1983 of P. S. Mau, district Banda and under Sections 25/27 Arms Act in Crime no. 51 of 1982 of the same police station.
Banda has been declared a dacoity affected area under the U. P. Dacoity Affected Area Act, 1983 (U. P. Act No. XXXI of 1983).
3. The offence for which the applicant Suresh Tewari is teing tried, were committed within the limits of Banda. After his arrest, Suresh Tewari was detained in pursuance of a warrant of arrest by the Special Judge, Banda. The Special Judge, Banda by his order dated 20-11-1982 consolidated the two Sessions Trials being Sessions trial no. 277 of 1982 and No. 278 of 1982 and framed charges against the accused persons including the applicant Suresh Tewari on 28-11-19X2.
4. Before the trial of the accused persons could start, a transfer application was moved by the State in this court far transfer of Sessions Trials. The State Government by notification no. 1306/VII-A Nyaya-221/81 dated March 17, 1983 created a Court of Special Judge at Allahabad for the purposes of speedy trial of Sessions trial nos.277, 278 and 435 of 1982 pending in the Court of the Special Judge, Banda.
The High Court in its administrative side appointed Sri P. N. Roy, the District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad as a Special Judge to try the cases. Sessions trial Nos.277, 278 and 435 of 1982 commenced before Sri P. N. Roy, Special Judge Allahabad, from 2-1-84 and is going from day to day and a number of witnesses have been examined. The accused persons are detained in Naini Central Jail under the orders of remand passed from time to time by the Special Judge, Allahabad, Sri P. N. Roy, who is trying the cases.
5. The first ground of attack in the (Habeas Corpus petition is that since Allahabad is not a dacoity affected area, the Special Judge, Allahabad, cannot be authorised by the Government or the High Court with jurisdiction to try the offences.
6. Under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the U. P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983, the State Government may, in consultation with the High Court, constitute, by notification, as many special courts, as may be necessary in or in relation to such dacoity affected area on areas as may be specified in such notification. Sub-section (2) of section 5 provides that a Special Court shall consist of a single Judge, who shall be appointed by the High Court from amongst the serving Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judges. In the Explanation to that sub-section it is added that the word "appoint" shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Explanation to Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Section 6 of the Act provides that not with standing anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force, a scheduled offence shall be triable only by a special Court.
7. Section 5 of the Act provides for constitution of Special Courts for speedy trial of the offence committed in a docoity affected area. It does not require that the Special Court constituted under Section 5, sub-section (1) of the Act shall be located physically within the dacoity affected area.
8. Sri P. N. Roy, the District and Sessions; Judge, Allahabad has been appointed as Special Judge to try the Sessions Trial Nos.277, 278 and 435 of 1982. He is qualified to be appointed as a Special Judge as he is the Sessions Judge, Allahabad. His appointment as Special Judge cannot be said to be illegal.
The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that the orders of remand passed by him are illegal, cannot be sustained in view of the fact that he is seized of the cases and has jurisdiction to remand the accused into custody.
9. Another argument of the learned co
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
