2004 (4) TMI 582 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the 3rd Special Court, Calcutta appointed under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 for trying offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short Act of 1947) had no jurisdiction to try the respondents for the alleged offences after coming into force of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short Act of 1988) w.e.f. 9th September, 1998?

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the 3rd Special Judge to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Validity of actions taken by Special Judges appointed under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 after the commencement of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Impact of the Prevention of Corruption (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1994 on pending proceedings and actions taken under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the 3rd Special Judge to Try Offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
The core issue was whether the 3rd Special Judge, appointed under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949, had jurisdiction to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 after the latter came into force on 9th September 1988. Initially, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondents, holding that the 3rd Special Court had no jurisdiction since it was not re-empowered under the Act of 1988. The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of both the Act of 1947 and the Act of 1988, noting that the Act of 1988 repealed the Act of 1947 and required the appointment of Special Judges under Section 3 of the Act of 1988 for jurisdiction.

2. Validity of Actions Taken by Special Judges Appointed under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949:
The High Court ruled that the actions taken by Special Judges appointed under the 1949 Act were invalid under the 1988 Act. However, the Supreme Court noted the issuance of Notification No.6614-J dated 23rd April 1993 by the Government of West Bengal, which attempted to retrospectively confer jurisdiction on these judges. The High Court had rejected this notification as it could not override the provisions of the Act of 1988, which required a central legislative amendment for such a retrospective effect.

3. Impact of the Prevention of Corruption (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1994:
The Supreme Court's attention was later drawn to the Prevention of Corruption (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1994, which was not considered by the High Court. This amendment inserted Section 26A into the Act of 1988, deeming Special Judges appointed under the 1949 Act to be Special Judges under the 1988 Act for the relevant areas. It validated all actions taken by these judges as if the amendment were in force when such actions were taken. The Supreme Court held that this amendment provided a complete answer to the jurisdictional issue, as it retrospectively conferred jurisdiction on the Special Judges and validated their actions.

The Supreme Court concluded that the West Bengal Amendment Act, 1994, effectively addressed the lacuna created by the transition from the Act of 1947 to the Act of 1988. It ensured that Special Judges appointed under the 1949 Act were deemed to have jurisdiction under the 1988 Act, thereby validating all their actions and proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed the 3rd Special Judge to proceed with the trial in accordance with the law.

← Previous Next →