SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(Online)(All) 27

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sri R.K. Roy, CJ
Bajpai T. S. v. K. K. Gangauly and Others
Application under S.482, Cr. P.C. 1973



The trial of an applicant cannot be conducted in a jurisdiction that lacks proper establishment under the applicable Code of Criminal Procedure.

Headnote:This application involves an examination under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, regarding the legality of proceedings against the applicant. The applicant's trial was pending under S.409, I.P.C. in the Special Magistrate's court, which ceased to exist after the Code of 1973 came into force. The Court found that the notifications issued under S.11(1) and S.11(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were illegal, as they failed to establish a proper jurisdiction for the trial. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings against the applicant for lack of jurisdiction.

Table of Content
1. application process under cr.p.c. (Para 1)
2. legality of jurisdiction for trial. (Para 2 , 4)
3. evaluation of notifications under the criminal procedure code. (Para 3 , 5)
4. quashing of proceedings lacking jurisdiction. (Para 6)
5. final outcome of the application. (Para 7)

1. This is an application under S.482, Cr. P.C. 1973.

2. According to the facts stated in the application, a charge sheet was filed against the applicant by the Sub-Inspector, Special Police Establishment, Lucknow under S.409, I.P.C. in the court of the Special Magistrate, Anti - Corruption, Lucknow on 28-6-1973. The trial of the applicant was pending when the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 came into force on 1-4-1974. The Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 repealed the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1898 and there is no provision in it corresponding to S.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1898. It is mentioned in S.484(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 that all notifications published, proclamations issued, powers conferred, forms prescribed, local jurisdiction defined, sentences passed and orders rules and appointments, not being appointments Special Magistrate, made under the old Code and which are in force immediately before the commencement of this Code, shall be deemed, respectively, to have been published, issued, conferred, prescribed, defined, passed or made under the corresponding provisions of this Code.

3. In exercise of the powers conferred by S.11(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, the State Government by its Notification No. 1592 / VII - A.N, 208/74 dated April 20, 1974 published in the U.P. Gazette, established a common court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for all districts of Uttar Pradesh, with its place of sitting at Lucknow to try or inquire into and commit to the court of Session all such cases arising in any local area within the State of Uttar Pradesh in which investigations are made or charge sheets filed by the Special Police Establishments constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 (Act XXV of 1946). By Notification No. 91 / Admn. (B) dated Allahabad May 7, 1974, the High Court of Judicature Allahabad in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (2) of S.11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 appointed Sri Rama Kant Roy, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow with effect from 1st April, 1974 as Judicial Magistrate of the First Class also for all the districts of U.P. with Headquarters at Lucknow to try or inquire into and commit to the court of Session all such cases arising in any local area within the State of U.P. in which investigation are made or charge - sheets filed by the Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. XXV of 1946).

4. The trial of the applicant is pending in the court of Sri R.K. Roy, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow as the charge - sheet against the applicant was filed by the Special Police Establishment, Lucknow. The charge - sheet filed against the applicant clearly indicated that the offence under S.409, I.P.C. was committed in the district of Etawah. The trial of the applicant was being held by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow prior to the coming into force of the new Code on 1-4-1974 as he had been appointed Special Magistrate, Anti - Corruption under S.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1898 by a notification of the State Government. As that court of Special Magistrate ceased to exist on 1-4-1974, when the new Code of Criminal Procedure came into force, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow could continue with the trial of the applicant if the two notifications mentioned above issued under S.11(1) and S.11(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 were legally issued under the aforesaid sections. S.11(1) and S.11(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 run as follows :
"11(1) In every district (not being a metropolitan area), there sh







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top