9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cr.P.C. praying to quash the order dated 20-7-1989 passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, in Cr.R.P. Nos. 44, 47 and 48/86 respectively including the order dated 25-2-1986 passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore, in C.C. Nos. 501, 692 and 743/1984 respectively. Criminal Petition No. 1367/1989 is filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings in Cr.R.P. No. 42/1986 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, confirming the order dated 24-2-1986 passed in C.C. No. 499/1984 on the file of the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore. All these Criminal Petitions are filed against the similar orders passed by the Sessions Judge confirming the orders challenged in those petitions passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore, rejecting the applications of the petitioners under Section 245 Cr.P.C. 2. Since these petitions are directed against the similar orders of the Sessions Court and all these petitions involve common questions of law, I have heard them together and passing a common order in these petitions. 3. The facts leading to these petitions are as follows : The Deputy Chi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its mind, and his last submission is that the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports is not a public servant since he had no power to file complaint under the Indian Penal Code and when he filed the complaint for the offence under the Indian Penal Code also, he was not acting in the discharge of his duties and he was just an ordinary complainant and the Court could not have taken cognizance of such an offence unless he was examined on oath. On the basis of his arguments, he contended that the impugned orders passed by the Court below are liable to be set aside and the complaints filed against the petitioners-accused are to be dismissed. 5. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel submitted that Section 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a Magistrate to try any offence under the Indian Penal Code. The notification issued gives powers to the Magistrate to try the offences under the Acts mentioned in the schedule to the notification establishing the Special Court. Therefore, the Special Court had the powers to try the offences under the Indian Penal Code along with the offences under the Acts mentioned in the schedule to the notification. 6. He also submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.K. RAMADEVAMMA, Under Secretary to Government, Dept. of Law and Parly. Affairs, (Administration-I)." The notification clearly lays down that a Special Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class came to be established under this notification for the trial of offences under the Acts mentioned in the schedule to the said notification. There is no mention in the notification that the said Court is also empowered to try the offences under the Indian Penal Code. 8. The contention of the learned Central Government Standing Counsel is that the Court which is established to deal with the economic offences under the Act is the Court of a Judicial Magistrate under Section 11 of Cr.P.C. and it has got jurisdiction to try the offences under the Indian Penal Code. In Section 11 of the Cr.P.C. it is mentioned that the State Government with the consultation of the High Court may establish a Special Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or of the Second Class to try any particular class of cases and when such Court is established, only such Court can try the cases or class of cases for which it is established. There cannot be any doubt that the cases to be tried by a Special ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or an Assistant Sessions Judge. He has the powers to try the offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent were to be correct, there was no necessity for empowering the Special Judge who is a Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge to try the offences other than the offences mentioned in Section 3 of that Act, because though he may be a Sessions Judge having powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure to try the offences under the said Act, he could not try the offences under the Indian Penal Code when he was created as a Special Judge, unless he was empowered to do so and that empowerment came only by Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. Similarly, under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, the Special Courts are created for trial of the offences under the Essential Commodities Act. Before the amendment Act of 1981, the Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act had the power to try only the offences under that Act and it had no power to try the offences under the Indian Penal Code or any other law. But, by Amendment Act, 1981, Section 12AA(2) came to be added ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 190(1). Whether the Magistrate has or has not taken cognizance of the offence will depend on the circumstances of the particular case including the mode in which the case is sought to be instituted, and the nature of the preliminary action, if any, taken by the Magistrate. Broadly speaking, when on receiving a complaint, the Magistrate applies his mind for the purposes of proceeding under Section 200 and the succeeding sections in Chapter XV of the Code of 1973, he is said to have taken cognizance of the offence within the meaning of Section 190(1)(a). If instead of proceeding under Chapter IX, he has in the judicial exercise of his discretion, taken action of some other kind, such as issuing a search warrant for the purpose of investigation or ordering investigation by the police under Section 156(3), he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence. (emphasis supplied) There must be some indications in the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence that he had applied his judicial mind before taking cognizance. The order in this case passed by the Presiding Officer of the Special Court does not disclose that he even perused the complaint before taking c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
