1988 (2) TMI 12 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Establishment of a single court for the entire State.
2. State's power under proviso to section 11(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Applicability of the notification in metropolitan areas.
4. Compliance with Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding Magistrates' jurisdiction.
5. Allegation of discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
6. Interference with the right of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Establishment of a Single Court for the Entire State:
The petitioners contended that a single court cannot be established for the entire State as the entire State does not qualify as a "local area." The court held that the State Government is empowered to declare the whole State or any part thereof as a local jurisdiction. The amendment to the definition of "local jurisdiction" in section 2(j) of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows the State Government to include the entire State within the jurisdiction of a Magistrate.

2. State's Power under Proviso to Section 11(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The petitioners argued that the State does not have the power to create a special court for trying a class of cases for the entire State. The court clarified that the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 11 empowers the State Government to establish one or more Special Courts of Judicial Magistrates for any local area to try any particular case or class of cases. This establishment can be done after consultation with the High Court.

3. Applicability of the Notification in Metropolitan Areas:
The petitioners claimed that the notification cannot operate in metropolitan areas in the State of U.P. The court found this argument to be futile in light of the notification dated August 7, 1987, which created a Special Court at Kanpur for cases arising from metropolitan areas. The proviso to sub-section (1) of section 11 overrides the exclusion of metropolitan areas, thus allowing the Special Court at Allahabad to have jurisdiction over economic offences in Kanpur Nagar.

4. Compliance with Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The petitioners contended that the notification violates provisions of Chapter XIII regarding the jurisdiction of Magistrates for the trial of offences. The court held that the amendment to section 11(1) and the proviso thereto allow the establishment of Special Courts with jurisdiction extending beyond a district, thereby complying with the legal framework.

5. Allegation of Discrimination Violating Article 14 of the Constitution:
The petitioners argued that creating one court for the entire State is discriminatory and contravenes Article 14. The court noted that Article 14 permits reasonable classification and does not forbid classification based on rational grounds. The classification made by the notification is reasonable as it aims to provide a speedier remedy by concentrating the trial of economic offences in one Special Magistrate who would develop expertise in such cases.

6. Interference with the Right of Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution:
The petitioners claimed that the notification interferes with the right to personal liberty under Article 21 by concentrating the entire work at one place, thus defeating the right to a speedy trial. The court held that the notification aims to achieve speedy determination of cases by a Special Magistrate with expert knowledge in economic offences. The procedure prescribed is neither arbitrary nor oppressive, thus satisfying the requirements of Article 21.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the notifications dated September 16, 1982, and August 7, 1987. The notifications were found to be in compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Constitution, specifically Articles 14 and 21. Cases pending and entertained thereafter must be transferred to the Special Magistrate, First Class, Kanpur, as per the notifications.