9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Sessions Judge to grant bail in cases within the jurisdiction of Special Judge for Economic Offences. 2. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions and notifications regarding the establishment of Special Court for Economic Offences in Andhra Pradesh. Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Sessions Judge to grant bail in cases within the jurisdiction of Special Judge for Economic Offences The High Court of Andhra Pradesh addressed the issue of jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge, Nellore, to grant bail in cases within the jurisdiction of the Special Judge for Economic Offences. The petitioner, representing the Customs & Central Excise Department, sought cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Judge in two separate cases. The court examined the circumstances where bail was granted despite objections raised about jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that the Special Judge for Economic Offences has exclusive jurisdiction in granting bail for such cases. Conversely, the respondent contended that the Sessions Judge had concurrent jurisdiction under Sections 437 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to grant bail. The court referred to legal precedents, including Gulam Mohd. v. State and Ishwar Chand v. State, to analyze the powers of the High Court and Sessions Court in granting bail. The judgment highlighted the need to determine whether the jurisdiction of the Sessions Division had been expressly or impliedly taken away after the establishment of the Special Court for Economic Offences. Issue 2: Interpretation of relevant legal provisions and notifications regarding the establishment of Special Court for Economic Offences in Andhra Pradesh The judgment extensively analyzed the legal framework surrounding the establishment of the Special Court for Economic Offences in Andhra Pradesh. It referenced Government Orders and notifications, specifically G.O. Ms. No. 202 Home Department, which established the Special Court to handle economic offenses under specified Acts. The court detailed the Acts falling under the jurisdiction of the Special Court, emphasizing the need for a Presiding Officer in the cadre of a District and Sessions Judge due to the severity of potential punishments. The notification specified the statewide jurisdiction of the Special Court, indicating the intent to centralize cases under the mentioned Acts. The judgment delved into the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, including Sections 11, 14, and the Amendment Act of 1978, to interpret the jurisdictional implications of the Special Court's establishment. By analyzing these legal provisions and notifications, the court concluded that the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court had been implicitly excluded in favor of the Special Judge for Economic Offences. In conclusion, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh ruled in favor of the petitioner, upholding the objections raised regarding the Sessions Judge's jurisdiction to grant bail in cases falling under the purview of the Special Judge for Economic Offences. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal framework, precedents, and notifications to support its decision, emphasizing the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Court in handling cases related to specified economic offenses.
|
