9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts place of sitting at Allahabad, to try cases arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule below in any local area within the State of Uttar Pradesh." The Schedule below the notification mentions 12 Acts to be covered by it. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the notification on the grounds that : (i) one single court cannot be established for the entire State as the entire State is not a "local area" ; (ii) the State does not have power under proviso to section 11(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, to create a special court for trying a class of cases for the entire State ; (iii) the notification cannot operate in the metropolitan areas in the State of U.P. ; (iv) the notification is violative of the provisions of Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the Jurisdiction of Magistrates for the trial of offences ; (v) creation of a special court at Allahabad is discriminatory and is violative of article 14 of the Constitution ; and (vi) the notification interferes with the right of personal liberty conferred by article 21 of the Constitution. The aforesaid writ petition and several others were classified and kept in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er consideration. The obvious context is that the jurisdiction of the Special Magistrate, Allahabad, be bifurcated into two to enable provision for speedy trial to the person implicated or involved therein. Coming to the question of the validity of the first notification, which would, in fact, cover any controversy which may be raised relating to the validity of the second notification as well as about the power of the State Government to issue the same. By notifications of April 20, 1974, and May 7, 1974, the State Government had empowered the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Lucknow, with the jurisdiction to enquire into and try and commit to the Court of Sessions cases in respect of offences occurring anywhere in the State. These notifications were challenged in T. S. Bajpai v. K. K. Ganguli [1976] Cr. LJ 514, and this court took the view that constitution of a single court of the Judicial Magistrate to try, enquire into or commit to the Court of Sessions all cases arising in any local jurisdiction was not within the competence of the State Government. After the aforesaid decision in Bajpai's case [1976] Cr. LJ 514 (All), the State issued Ordinance No. 13 of 1976, subsequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent may by notification specify. The proviso inserted by the aforesaid amending Act entitles the State Government to establish one court for trying all cases at one place, which the State Government may do after consultation with the High Court. The "Objects and Reasons" of the proviso inserted for the amendment brought about mentioned in the amended Act were : "Under the new Code, Courts of Magistrates are established for every district. Sometimes it becomes necessary to set up Courts of Judicial Magistrates for trying special categories of cases, where the jurisdiction has to extend to areas beyond a district. Sub-section (1) of section 11 is being amended to empower the State Government to establish Special Courts o Judicial Magistrates having jurisdiction throughout any local area and to confer on such courts exclusive jurisdiction to try any particular case or particular class of cases." We may extract the proviso as well which reads as under : "Provided that the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, establish, for any local area, one or more Special Courts of Judicial Magistrates of the first class or of the second class to try any particular. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel was that there was no logical basis for lumping together all the cases arising in the whole of the State and conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Special Magistrate at Allahabad. It was suggested that creation of one court for the whole of the State is in contravention of article 39A of the Constitution as well. The underlying principle of article 14 is that all persons and things similarly situated shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. "Equality before the law" means that among classes, the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that like should be treated alike. Hence, what it forbids is discrimination between persons who are, substantially, in similar circumstances or conditions. However, article 14 does not forbid classification which rests upon reasonable grounds of distinction. It prohibits legislation which is limited either in the objects to which it is directed or by the territory within which it is to operate. The principle of equality does not mean that every law has to be applied universally to all persons who, by nature, required different treatment. So much has already been said by the Supreme Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scribed by law. Emphasis was laid by the petitioner's counsel that the concentration of the entire work at one place for the whole of Uttar Pradesh will defeat the entitlement of an accused to get a speedy trial, which is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in article 21 of the Constitution. The expression "personal liberty" in article 21 has been held by the Supreme Court to be of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man. The procedure for that purpose cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive, otherwise it would be no procedure at all, and the requirement of article 21 would not be satisfied. In the instant case, the State Government has issued the impugned notification in consultation with the High Court under section 11 conferring upon one Special Magistrate the power of deciding all the cases relating to economic offences. The dominant purpose is to achieve not only speedy determination but a determination with the utmost despatch. The Special Magistrate will have no other work to do except deciding cases of economic offences. He would have expert knowl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
