1995 (8) TMI 170 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Special Court for Economic Offences to try offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Application of judicial mind by the Special Court while taking cognizance.
3. Authority of the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports to file complaints under the IPC.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Special Court for Economic Offences to try offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

The primary issue revolves around whether the Special Court for Economic Offences has jurisdiction to try offences under the IPC. The petitioners argued that the Special Court, established under a notification for economic offences, lacks jurisdiction to try IPC offences. The notification (Annexure-B) specifies that the Special Court is for the trial of offences under certain Acts, which does not include the IPC. The court examined the notification and concluded that it clearly establishes the Special Court for the trial of offences under the Acts listed in the schedule, excluding the IPC. The court referred to similar provisions in the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Essential Commodities Act, where specific amendments were required to empower special courts to try offences beyond those specified. Thus, the court held that the Special Court for Economic Offences does not have jurisdiction to try IPC offences unless the notification is modified to include such authority.

2. Application of judicial mind by the Special Court while taking cognizance:

The petitioners contended that the Special Court did not apply its judicial mind before taking cognizance of the offences. The court noted that the order of the Magistrate simply stated, "Cognizance taken. Register the case. Issue summons to the accused," without indicating any application of judicial mind. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy & Others v. Narayana Reddy & Others, the court emphasized that taking cognizance is a judicial act requiring the Magistrate to apply their mind to the case. The court found that the Magistrate's order lacked any reference to the complaint or the offences alleged, making it difficult to conclude that judicial mind was applied. Consequently, the court held that the Special Court failed to properly take cognizance of the offences.

3. Authority of the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports to file complaints under the IPC:

The petitioners argued that the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, who filed the complaints, is not a public servant authorized to file complaints under the IPC. The court examined the relevant notification (Annexure-F), which authorizes the Deputy Chief Controller to file complaints under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports Act but not under the IPC. Since the complaints included IPC offences, the court held that the Deputy Chief Controller was acting as an ordinary complainant and should have been examined under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. However, this procedural requirement would only apply if the court had jurisdiction to try IPC offences, which it does not.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the Special Court for Economic Offences lacks jurisdiction to try IPC offences, the Magistrate did not apply judicial mind while taking cognizance, and the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports was not authorized to file complaints under the IPC. Therefore, the petitions were allowed, the orders of both the lower courts were set aside, and the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 245 Cr.P.C. were allowed, resulting in their discharge.