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

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
M. Wahajuddin, J.
Shyam Lal - Applicant (In Jail)
versus
State of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent (Opp. Party.)
Criminal Misc. Application No. 8524 of 1983
Decided on 21-10-1983

Advocates:
B.N. Agarwal, Advocate - For the applicant.
A.G.A. - For the Respondent (Opp. Party)

IMPORTANT POINT
The law is well-settled that the general jurisdiction concerning criminal cases and magisterial powers under the Cr. P.C. is to prevail, unless such powers have been taken away by the special notification.

Headnote:Jurisdiction of General Criminal Courts - Case against the applicant relating to embazzlement in a Co-operative Society and is pending-Investigation was not conducted by special Investigating Branch Co-operative - Whether jurisdiction of the General Courts would be taken away in view of Govt. Notification dated May 2, 1979? (No.) (Paras 1 and 2)

       

JUDGMENT

M. Wahajuddin, J. - The case against the applicant relates to embezzlement, etc., in Cooperative Society and is pending in Jhansi. The copy of the Notification dated July 29, 1982, of the Allahabad High Court appointing Km. Sudha Singh in place of Sri Amar Sinha, since transferred, for the disposal of the case relating to such embezzlement has been relied upon. The matter that arose for consideration is whether the provision is prospective or retrospective. The law is well settled that the general jurisdiction concerning criminal cases and magisterial powers under the Cr. P.C. is to prevail, unless such powers have been taken away by the special Notification. The applicant relied upon the notification of the High Court, as aforesaid. This notification has been made in pursuance of the Government Notification and that Government Notification has also been mentioned. I per used the Government Notification dated May 2, 1979, published in the official Gazette of 23-6-1979. On perusal of this Government Notification, I find that apart from all other conditions, the last condition which lays down that in which investigations are made or charge-sheets are filed by the Special Investigating Branch Cooperative, Uttar Pradesh, is also to be satisfied. So unless the investigation was conducted by the Special Branch, which must have been created after this notification, the jurisdiction of the general Courts would not be taken away.

2. The counter-affidavit has been filed in the present case that investigation was not conducted by Special Investigating Branch Cooperative. When that is the position, the jurisdiction of the General Courts otherwise competent is not ousted and this application has no farce and is hereby rejected.

3. After I have dictated this judgment, the Counsel urged that there is another infirmity that the Special Investigating Branch did not investigate the case. That will have no bearing. Once cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it will be totally immaterial as to who investigated the case. The submission has no force.

Petition dismissed.

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 Back to top