9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a Special Judge under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949, needs a petition of complaint to take cognizance of a case. 2. Whether the point regarding the mode of taking cognizance was rightly decided in the unreported decisions of Criminal Appeals Nos. 377 of 1958 and 393 of 1959 and Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 1545 to 1548 of 1959. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether a Special Judge under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949, needs a petition of complaint to take cognizance of a case: The Court examined the concept of taking cognizance, which is not explicitly defined in the Criminal Procedure Code but has been interpreted through judicial decisions. It was highlighted that taking cognizance involves a judicial act where the court applies its mind to the facts for the purpose of proceeding with the case. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's decision in R.R. Chari v. State of U.P., which emphasized that cognizance is taken when the court applies its mind to the facts for proceeding in a particular way. The Court analyzed the scheme of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949. Section 5(1) of the Act allows a Special Court to take cognizance of offences without the accused being committed for trial. The Court noted that this provision deviates from Section 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires commitment by a Magistrate for a Court of Session to take cognizance. The Special Court, deemed to be a Court of Session, follows the procedure for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates instituted otherwise than on a police report. The Court concluded that the Special Court does not need a petition of complaint to take cognizance. Instead, it can take cognizance upon receiving the Government's order of distribution under Section 4(2) of the Act and the record of the case from the Magistrate. The Special Court must apply its mind to the facts of the case for the purpose of trying the offence under the Act. 2. Whether the point regarding the mode of taking cognizance was rightly decided in the unreported decisions of Criminal Appeals Nos. 377 of 1958 and 393 of 1959 and Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 1545 to 1548 of 1959: The Court reviewed the unreported decisions where it was held that the Special Court needs a petition of complaint to take cognizance. The Court disagreed with this view, stating that the Special Court can take cognizance on the basis of the Government's order of distribution and the record of the case from the Magistrate, without requiring a petition of complaint. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Bhajahari Mondal v. State of West Bengal, which indicated that the jurisdiction of the Special Court arises when the notification is issued distributing the case to a particular Special Court. The Court emphasized that taking cognizance is distinct from the jurisdiction of the Court, and the Special Court takes cognizance under Section 5(1) of the Act. The Court also noted that the subsequent amendment to the Act, introduced by the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) (Amending) Act, 1960, prescribed the methods of taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the Court clarified that this amendment does not affect the answers to the questions raised in the Full Bench reference, as it applies to future cases where cognizance has not yet been taken. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the Special Court under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949, does not need a petition of complaint to take cognizance of a case. The Special Court can take cognizance upon receiving the Government's order of distribution and the record of the case from the Magistrate by applying its mind to the facts of the case. The unreported decisions in Criminal Appeals Nos. 377 of 1958 and 393 of 1959 and Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 1545 to 1548 of 1959 were held to be wrongly decided.
|
