9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 288 - HC - Indian LawsTransfer of cases relating to MPs and MLAs to the Special courts for fast tracking - HELD THAT - When there are directions with specificity from Hon ble Supreme Court to constitute / designate courts at both Sessions and Magisterial levels (that too as many courts as required), after having understood the same correctly and after having constituted / designated courts also in the same manner, non designating the lone Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Chennai alone particularly when Hon ble Supreme Court had made it clear that as many courts as necessary, deemed fit and expedient have to be constituted / designated at both levels deserves a closer examination. This court is constrained to make this observation as the lone reason for non designating the II Metropolitan Magistrate is work load and the perception that said court may not be able to allocate time to hear cases involving M.Ps / M.L.As on day to day basis. According to fourth respondent, there were no magisterial offences / cases in this category as of 05.03.2019. Be that as it may, a simple way out would have been to constitute / designate more courts at magisterial level, as Hon ble Supreme Court has already given directives with specificity in this regard. To be noted, even today, it is submitted without any disputation that Courts of Judicial Magistrates which were designated / constituted in 31 judicial districts for trying cases involving M.Ps / M.L.As are still functioning. Therefore, 6.9.2019 letter / communication of fourth respondent, third respondent acting on the same and making G.O.Ms.No.535 dated 11.10.2019 are presenting some difficulty. Notwithstanding clear / specific directives from Hon ble Supreme Court, if and if at all non designating lone Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Chennai alone had become imperative / inevitable, ideally, third and fourth respondents could have approached Hon ble Supreme Court and sought suitable directives. Admittedly, this was not done. This Court deems it pertinent to mention that there is no submission / explanation, much less material regarding why more Metropolitan Magistrates in Chennai were not designated (as per directives of Hon ble Supreme Court, i.e., as many as deemed necessary at Sessions and magisterial levels) though this Court is informed that there are more than 20 Metropolitan Magistrates courts in Chennai. However, considering the scope of cases on hand, this court refrains itself from dilating further into this aspect of the matter. There is no explanation, much less even plausible explanation that is being put forth for not transferring the petitioners cases to Court of II Metropolitan Magistrate. For Court of Sessions taking cognizance of a case without committal by a Magistrate, there are only two exceptions. One exception is an express provision in Cr.P.C in this regard and the other is any express provision in this regard in any other law. An express provision if any can at best be considered to be one under Section 280B(a) of IT Act, which talks about Special Court. The question of cases on hand being heard by a special court will arise only if so designated as mentioned in section 280A of IT Act. A perusal of section 280B of IT Act makes it clear that offences become triable by Special Court if so designated , but, no such designation has been made as far as Tamil Nadu is concerned. Therefore, lack of original jurisdiction for Sessions Court argument is saved by Ranbir Yadav principle though ideally, transfer could have been made to II Metropolitan Magistrate Court - a perusal of section 26 of Cr.P.C makes it clear that offences on hand are triable by Magistrate courts. Absent Special court under Section 280A of IT Act, section 26 of Cr.P.C operates and section 26 of Cr.P.C more particularly, subsection (b) of section 26 makes it clear that offences on hand which are offences under any other law are triable in accordance with the First Schedule to Cr.P.C. Ideally, either more number of Magistrate Courts should have been designated or Hon ble Supreme Court should have been approached for suitable directions. This turns on fundamental principle of discipline in hierarchy of Courts. Therefore, the argument that transfer has the trappings / is traceable to Article 227 and Section 407 Cr.P.C is an argument which not only does not impress this Court, but it is an argument which cannot even be countenanced. With regard to the argument that petitioners were neither M.Ps / M.L.As nor former M.Ps / M.L.As on the date of alleged offence or on the date of launching complaints, as Hon ble Supreme Court has directed all pending cases to be transferred, this argument fails - Likewise, the argument that only one of the petitioners has become an M.P is of no avail to petitioners, as Hon ble Supreme Court has directed transfer of all cases involving sitting / former M.Ps /M.L.As. This Court deems it appropriate to make a parting observation that 4th and 3rd respondents in first and second Crl.O.Ps will do well to designate one or more Metropolitan Magistrate/s in Chennai for trying criminal cases related to elected M.Ps/M.L.As - Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of criminal complaints. 2. Assailing the transfer of criminal complaints from the Economic Offences Court to the Special Court for trial of criminal cases related to elected MPs/MLAs. Detailed Analysis: Quashing of Criminal Complaints: 1. Arguments by Petitioners: - Section 148 Returns: If returns in response to notices under Section 148 of the IT Act are treated as returns under Section 139, the original returns cease to exist, necessitating the quashing of the complaints. - Assessment Order Requirement: Absent at least one assessment order, there can be no prosecution. The criminal complaints were filed before reasons for issuing Section 148 notices were disclosed. - Third-Party Statements: The prosecution is based on statements given by third parties, which is impermissible. - Limitation: The complaints are barred by limitation as they were launched after the time frame for reassessment under the IT Act. 2. Counter-Arguments by Respondents: - Prosecution Basis: The prosecution is based on search and seizure, not assessments. - Limitation: Economic offences under the IT Act are not barred by limitation due to the Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974. 3. Court's Analysis: - Limitation: The court concluded that the criminal complaints are not barred by limitation due to the Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974. - Assessment vs. Search/Seizure: The complaints are based on search and seizure, not assessments, negating the petitioners' arguments regarding the necessity of assessment orders. - Third-Party Statements: The court found that the prosecution's case is based on corroborated evidence from search and seizure, not solely on third-party statements. - Bhajan Lal Principles: The court applied the principles from Bhajan Lal's case and determined that the complaints should not be quashed as the allegations, if proven, could constitute an offence. 4. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petitions seeking to quash the criminal complaints (Crl.O.P.Nos.1526 and 1527 of 2020). Assailing the Transfer of Criminal Complaints: 1. Arguments by Petitioners: - Jurisdiction: The transfer to a Sessions Court is bad in law as the offences are magisterial. - Deprivation of Revision: The transfer deprives the petitioners of the possibility of seeking revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. - Original Jurisdiction: The Sessions Court lacks original jurisdiction as there is no committal. - Special Court Status: The Economic Offences Court is a Special Court under Section 280A of the IT Act, making the transfer improper. - Timing of MP Status: On the date of the alleged offence and the filing of complaints, the petitioners were not MPs/MLAs. 2. Counter-Arguments by Respondents: - Higher Court Trial: Magisterial offences can be tried by a higher court. - Committal Not Required: Committal is not necessary in cases of transfer. - Appeal Rights: The transfer does not deprive the petitioners of appeal rights; it only changes the appellate forum. - Workload Justification: The II Metropolitan Magistrate Court was non-designated due to workload. 3. Court's Analysis: - Hierarchy and Jurisdiction: The court found that the transfer to the Sessions Court is permissible under the principles laid down in Ranbir Yadav and Classic Credit cases. - Prejudice to Petitioners: The court concluded that no prejudice was demonstrated by the petitioners due to the transfer. - Special Court Status: The court noted that the Economic Offences Court is not a designated Special Court under Section 280A of the IT Act. - Supreme Court Directives: The transfer was in accordance with the directives of the Supreme Court in the Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay case. 4. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petitions challenging the transfer of the criminal complaints (Crl.O.P.Nos.22136 and 22137 of 2019). Final Order: All four Criminal Original Petitions (Crl.O.P.Nos.22136 and 22137 of 2019, 1526 and 1527 of 2020) are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. The court also suggested that more Metropolitan Magistrate Courts in Chennai should be designated for trying criminal cases related to elected MPs/MLAs in accordance with the Supreme Court's directives.
|
