1996 (2) TMI 556 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Magistrate in the absence of Municipal Magistrate.
2. Applicability of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).
3. Validity of the criminal complaint procedure under the Act.
4. Obligation of the Central Government to appoint Municipal Magistrates.
5. Impact of non-appointment of Municipal Magistrates on trial proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Magistrate in the absence of Municipal Magistrate:
The primary issue was whether a Metropolitan Magistrate could take cognizance and try an accused for an offence under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, in the absence of a Municipal Magistrate. The court concluded that in the absence of the establishment of courts of Municipal Magistrates under Section 469 of the Act, Metropolitan Magistrates, being Judicial Magistrates of the First Class, are competent to try offences under the Act. The absence of a Municipal Magistrate does not bar the jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts.

2. Applicability of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.):
The court examined relevant provisions of the Act and Cr.P.C., particularly Sections 466(a), 467, 469, and 470 of the Act, and Sections 4, 5, and 6 of Cr.P.C. Section 469 empowers the Central Government to appoint Municipal Magistrates, and Section 470 makes offences under the Act cognizable by Municipal Magistrates. However, in the absence of such appointments, Section 4 Cr.P.C. allows offences under any law to be tried by ordinary criminal courts.

3. Validity of the criminal complaint procedure under the Act:
The court noted that the criminal complaint filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Act. The complaint was filed in the court of a Metropolitan Magistrate due to the absence of a Municipal Magistrate. The court found no error in this procedure, emphasizing that the law does not compel the impossible ("Tex non cojit ad impossibility").

4. Obligation of the Central Government to appoint Municipal Magistrates:
The court highlighted the obligation of the Central Government under Section 469 of the Act to appoint Municipal Magistrates for the trial of offences under the Act. The use of the word "may" indicates discretion in the number of appointments but does not relieve the government of its duty to appoint such magistrates. The court stressed that once appointed, only Municipal Magistrates would have jurisdiction to try offences under the Act.

5. Impact of non-appointment of Municipal Magistrates on trial proceedings:
In the absence of appointed Municipal Magistrates, the jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts (Metropolitan Magistrates) to try offences under the Act remains intact. The court asserted that the comprehensive nature of Cr.P.C. ensures that offences under any law must be tried, and the absence of a specific forum does not invalidate the jurisdiction of general criminal courts. The court directed the trial of the criminal complaint to proceed expeditiously, with the provision that if a Municipal Magistrate is appointed subsequently, the case would be transferred to that court.

Conclusion:
The court affirmed that Metropolitan Magistrates have the jurisdiction to try offences under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, in the absence of appointed Municipal Magistrates. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the trial of the criminal complaint. The decision underscores the principle that the absence of a specific forum does not preclude the trial of offences under applicable laws.