2021 (8) TMI 434 - HC - Customs

Offences u/s 111(a) and 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Seeking implementation of Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 1293, dated 24.05.1982 issued by the Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu - constitution of three Special Courts, viz., two Additional Metropolitan Magistrates' Courts at Chennai (in the cadre of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate) and an Additional Court of Chief Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate at Madurai (in the cadre of Sub Judge) - HELD THAT - A perusal of the G.O. Ms. No. 1293 dated 24.05.1982 no doubt makes it clear that in exercise of powers conferred by the Proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the Governor of Tamilnadu have examined the recommendation of the Law Commission in consultation with this Court and established a Special Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at Madurai for the local area comprising the districts of Madurai, Ramanathapuram, Thirunelveli and Kanyakumari for trial of economic offences and Two Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Courts at Chennai. Though the Law Commission in its 47th Report recommended the establishment of Special Courts for the effective and speedy prosecution of economic offences, the Government of Tamil Nadu have examined the suggestion of the Government of India in consultation with this Court and constituted an Additional Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Madurai (in the cadre of Sub-Judge) and two Metropolitan Magistrates' Courts in the City of Madras (in the cadre of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate) for the speedy trial of economic offences with specified jurisdiction - When things stand so, Special Court can attract cases, which are arising out within the jurisdiction specified and in the rest of the area, Judicial Magistrate of concerned jurisdiction alone has got jurisdiction, as rightly contended by Mr. B.Vijay, Learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent. The Petitioner cannot misuse this forum in order to transfer of the case pending before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Thanjavur to Chennai and the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected - The petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Implementation of Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 1293 dated 24.05.1982 by Special Courts.
2. Jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate in economic offences cases.
3. Transfer of case from Judicial Magistrate to Special Courts.

Analysis:
1. The Petitioner sought to implement the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 1293 dated 24.05.1982, which established three Special Courts for economic offences. The Petitioner argued that the Judicial Magistrate in Thanjavur had no jurisdiction and the case should be transferred to Special Courts in Chennai based on the Government Order.

2. The contention was raised that only the courts specified in the G.O. Ms. No. 1293 dated 24.05.1982 have jurisdiction to try economic offences cases. The Respondent argued that the Judicial Magistrate of the concerned jurisdiction is empowered to handle such cases, as per the notifications issued.

3. The Petitioner's counsel emphasized the need for Special Courts in all jurisdictions for effective prosecution of economic offences based on Law Commission recommendations. However, the Respondent highlighted that the Government has discretion in establishing Special Courts as necessary and feasible, and appreciated the efforts to implement the Law Commission's recommendations.

4. Despite the Law Commission's recommendation for Special Courts, the Government of Tamil Nadu established specific courts in Madurai and Chennai for economic offences trials. It was clarified that Special Courts have jurisdiction only in specified areas, and in other regions, the Judicial Magistrate of the concerned jurisdiction retains authority, as argued by the Respondent.

5. The judgment dismissed the Petitioner's request to transfer the case from the Judicial Magistrate in Thanjavur to Special Courts in Chennai, emphasizing that the Judicial Magistrate had jurisdiction in the matter. The court upheld the defined jurisdiction as per the notifications and rejected the transfer, concluding that the Writ Petition should be dismissed without costs.