1985 (8) TMI 375 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues: Competency of Sessions Court to grant bail under Essential Commodities Act

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case is whether the Sessions Court has the authority to grant bail to an individual accused under the Essential Commodities Act, despite the provisions of Section 12-AA of the Act. The State argued that the Special Court designated under the Act has the exclusive power to consider bail applications, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. Section 12-AA of the Essential Commodities Act delineates the establishment of Special Courts for trying offences under the Act and outlines specific provisions regarding bail.

2. Section 12-AA of the Essential Commodities Act does not explicitly provide for anticipatory bail. The absence of a provision for anticipatory bail under the Act implies that the general principle of Generalia specialibus non derogant does not apply in this context. The court reasoned that since Section 12-AA does not address anticipatory bail, the right conferred under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) cannot be deemed to have been negated. A precedent from the Punjab and Haryana High Court supported this interpretation, stating that the power to grant pre-arrest bail remains with the Sessions Court and the High Court.

3. The court concluded that the provisions of Section 12-AA of the Essential Commodities Act do not restrict the Sessions Court or the High Court from exercising the powers granted under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The judgment emphasized that the Sessions Court and the High Court are not bound by the restrictions imposed by Section 12-AA and can independently consider bail applications under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

4. In light of the above analysis, the court held that the Sessions Court and the High Court are not constrained by the provisions of Section 12-AA of the Essential Commodities Act in granting anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in the case under consideration, with specific conditions regarding the execution of a personal bond and sureties from a designated district.

5. The judgment clarifies the interplay between the Essential Commodities Act and the Criminal Procedure Code concerning the grant of bail, affirming the concurrent jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and the High Court in adjudicating bail applications despite the special provisions of the former Act.

6. The court's decision underscores the importance of upholding individual rights and ensuring access to bail provisions, even in cases involving specialized enactments like the Essential Commodities Act.