2003 (11) TMI 624 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the High Court's administrative order transferring cases.
2. Jurisdiction of Additional Sessions Judges to try cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Nature of trial for offences under Section 138.
4. Right of appeal and revision for the petitioners.
5. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of the High Court's Administrative Order:
The petitioners challenged the High Court's administrative order dated 21st March 2002, transferring cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the "Act") to Additional Sessions Judges. They argued that this order was unconstitutional and illegal, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The High Court had transferred these cases due to a shortage of judicial officers at the magisterial level, aiming to expedite the disposal of cases.

2. Jurisdiction of Additional Sessions Judges:
Petitioners contended that complaints under Section 138 of the Act should only be tried by Metropolitan Magistrates or Judicial Magistrates, First Class, as specified in Section 142(c) of the Act. They argued that the transfer to Additional Sessions Judges was improper, as the Act did not vest jurisdiction in the Court of Sessions. The High Court's order was seen as overstepping its authority by bypassing the special legislation that conferred jurisdiction specifically on Magistrates of First Class.

3. Nature of Trial for Offences under Section 138:
The petitioners argued that offences under Section 138 are summon trial cases, not warrant trial cases, as the maximum punishment is two years. They cited Sections 2(w) and 2(x) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the "Code") to support their argument. The High Court, however, found that the legislative intent was to allow only Metropolitan Magistrates or Judicial Magistrates, First Class, to try these cases, and not any superior court like the Court of Sessions.

4. Right of Appeal and Revision:
The transfer of cases to the Additional Sessions Judges was argued to have taken away the petitioners' right of appeal to the Court of Sessions under Section 374(3) of the Code and the right of revision to the High Court under Section 397(1) of the Code. The High Court agreed with this contention, noting that this transfer created discrimination between those whose cases were filed before and after 31st December 2001. The latter group would still be tried by Metropolitan Magistrates or Judicial Magistrates, First Class, retaining their right of appeal and revision.

5. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Article 21:
The petitioners claimed that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution by discriminating against them and depriving them of their legal rights. The High Court found merit in this argument, stating that the object of speedy trial could not justify such discrimination. The court emphasized that any curtailment of the accused's rights and safeguards provided under the Code would be unconstitutional.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the impugned order transferring the cases to Additional Sessions Judges was in violation of the special legislation (the Act) and discriminatory. The court set aside the order, directing that the cases be sent back to the Metropolitan Magistrates for trial in accordance with the law. However, it clarified that judgments already delivered by the Additional Sessions Judges would not be treated as without jurisdiction.