9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law to the High Court: 1.(a) Whether the recent amendment dated 22.2.2008 in the Schedule I of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be applied retrospectively? (b) Consequently, whether the case pending before the Magistrate First Class, in which evidence partly or wholly has been recorded, and now has been committed to this Court is to be tried de novo by the Court of Sessions or it should be remanded back to the Magistrate First Class for further trial? The background facts briefly are that a challan under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC ) was filed against the accused on 4.7.1995 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Evidence of 9 out of 10 witnesses in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of the First Class by the amendment to the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are to be transferred and made over to the Court of Sessions, or are to be retained with the Judicial Magistrate First Class. In the absence of such express provision in the amendment, the question is whether the cases which are pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at the time when the amendment was published on 22.2.2008 will have to continue in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class or will have to be transferred to the Court of Sessions. In Manujendra Dutt v. Purnedu Prosad Roy Chowdhury and Ors. [AIR 1967 SC 1419], one of the questions which arose in the appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Calcutta for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs pending before him, the Controller would continue to have jurisdiction to try proceedings pending before him at the date when the amendment came into force. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Manujendra Dutta v. Purnedu Prosad Roy Chowdhury and Ors. (supra), was followed in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. R. Sharadamma [AIR 1996 SC 3199], The question that was referred to the High Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Krishna [AIR 2003 SC 565], a submission was made by the Appellant that the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 was enacted, inter alia, to control evictions of tenant and the Act had a wide application. But Sub-section (7) of Section 2 of the Act excluded application of the Act to certain categories of premises and one of these categories, which had been excepted from the application of the Act was 'any premises belonging to religious or charitable institutions under the management of the State Government'. By the Karnataka Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1994, the words 'under the management of the State Government' were deleted and the effect to the amendment was that while earlier premises belonging to religious or charitable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Court of Munsif of its jurisdiction to hear and decide proceedings for eviction over such premises as the suit premises are. In other words, it is a change in forum brought during the pendency of the proceedings. The correct approach to be adopted in such cases is that a new law bringing about a change in forum does not affect pending actions, unless a provision is made in it for change over of proceedings or there is some other clear indication that pending actions are affected. (See Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Justice G.P. Singh, 8th Edition 2001, p.442). .... The aforesaid discussion of law laid down by the Supreme Court is thus clear that the new law bringing about the change of forum does not affect pend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
