2008 (7) TMI 1063 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 13 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (OS Act).
2. Validity of the Central Government's notification rescinding the empowerment of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) to try offences under the OS Act.
3. Impact of the rescinded notification on pending cases and the option exercised by the accused to be tried by the CMM.
4. Jurisdictional competency of the Court of Sessions versus the Magistrate of the First Class under the OS Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 13 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (OS Act):
The judgment primarily focuses on the interpretation of Section 13 of the OS Act, which restricts the trial of offences to courts not inferior to that of a District or Presidency Magistrate, unless specially empowered. The court emphasized that Section 13(2) makes it clear that offences under the OS Act are generally intended to be tried by the Court of Sessions, even if a Magistrate of the First Class is specially empowered. The court highlighted that the special empowerment of a Magistrate of the First Class is an exception rather than the rule, indicating the Legislature's intent for serious offences under the OS Act to be tried by higher courts.

2. Validity of the Central Government's Notification Rescinding the Empowerment of the CMM:
The court upheld the validity of the Central Government's notification dated 21.6.2006, which rescinded the earlier notification empowering the CMM to try offences under the OS Act. The court reasoned that the power to appoint includes the power to withdraw the appointment. Consequently, the withdrawal of the special empowerment of the CMM was within the Central Government's authority, and the administrative decision of the Delhi High Court to transfer cases from the CMM to the Court of Sessions was valid.

3. Impact of the Rescinded Notification on Pending Cases and the Option Exercised by the Accused:
The court addressed the issue of pending cases where the accused had exercised the option to be tried by the CMM. It was noted that the impugned notification did not specifically save ongoing proceedings, meaning that the withdrawal of the special empowerment rendered the option exercised by the accused ineffective. The court referred to common law principles and previous judgments to conclude that pending proceedings would be governed by the amended law, and the trial would now proceed in the Court of Sessions.

4. Jurisdictional Competency of the Court of Sessions Versus the Magistrate of the First Class Under the OS Act:
The court analyzed the competency of different courts to try offences under the OS Act. It was determined that the Court of Sessions would ordinarily have jurisdiction to try such offences unless a Magistrate of the First Class was specially empowered. The court referred to previous judgments and statutory provisions to support this interpretation. The court also addressed concerns about the potential loss of an appellate forum, concluding that the right to appeal is statutory and not absolute, and the transfer of cases to the Court of Sessions did not unjustly deprive the accused of any legal remedy.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions challenging the administrative decision to transfer cases from the CMM to the Court of Sessions, upholding the Central Government's notification and affirming the jurisdictional competency of the Court of Sessions to try offences under the OS Act. The judgment emphasized the legislative intent for serious offences under the OS Act to be tried by higher courts and validated the procedural changes brought about by the rescinded notification.