LexA.R. ANTULAY versus RAMDAS SRINIWAS NAYAK AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
914
A.R. ANTULAY
v.
RAMDAS SRINIWAS NAY AK AND ANOTHER
February 16, 1984
[D. A. DESAI, R. S. PATHAK, 0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY, A. P. SBN
AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.)
Interpretation of Sttttutes-Construction of Penal Laws-Rules for.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Act II of 1974) Sections 4, 6, 190, 200,
202, 238 to 250-Specfal Judge, taking cognizance of offence under the Preven-
tion of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act 2 of 1947) on a private complaint fn respect
of the said offences committed by Public ServantS, legality of-Criminal Law
Amendment Act (XLVJ of 1952) ·section 6 to 8, Scope of-Court of Special
Judge Is a Court of.Original Criminal Jurisdiction and shall have llll powers
except those specifically excluded.
Legislation by In corporatiort, doctrine
applied.
Respondent Nayat filed a pdvate complaint aeainst the appellant,
alleging thit the appellant ha!, asa p•blic servant aommitted certain oft'ences
under ss. 5, 5A and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of
1947), and section 161-165 of the Indian Penal Code before the learned
Special Judge, Sbri P. S. Bhutta.
The Special Judge toot cognizance of the
said offences and adjourned the case to October 12, 1982 on which date, the
appellants' counsel moved an app1icatioD questioning the jurisdiction of the
court OD two specific counts : (i) that the Court of special Judge act up
under s. 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 ('1952 Act' for
short) cannot take coa:nizance of any of the offences enumerated ins, G' (1)
(a) & (b) upon a private compl.aint of facts constituting the offenpe and
(ii) that where there are m-ore special Judges than o'ne for any area, in the
absence of a specification by the State Government in this behalf, spccif)'iQg
the local area over which each special Judge would have jurisdiction, the
speci_al Judge (Mr. Bhutta) had DD jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
offences and try the case.
The learned special Judge rejected both tho con·
1 tentions.
The appellant filed Criminal Revision Application No. SlO of
1982 in the Bombay High Court.
On a reference made by the learned
Single Judge, this roviaion apPlication was board by a Division Bench of the
High' Court.
Tho learned Judges by two separate but concurring judgments
held that 1pccial Judge is competent and is entitled to take cognizance of
offences set out in s. 6 (1) (a) & (b) upon a private complaint of facts
constituting the offence and consequently rejected the first contention.
In
reaching this conclusion the learned Judges held that a prior investigation
under s. SA of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 194 7 ('I 947 Act' for shon)
by a police officer of tl~e designated ran~ is n.ot a c;:ondition precedent to
A. R. ANTULAY v. R. S. NAYAK
915
the special Judge takiag cognizance of t~e offences under s. 8 (ll of 1952
Act, and taking notice of the Notification dated January 15, 1983 issued by
the Maharashtra State under sub's. (2) of s. 7 of 1952 Act, specifying
Shri· R B. Sule, Special Jtidge for Ort?atcr Bomaby for trying the Special
Case No. 24 of 1982 rejected the second contention and therefore, the re ..
vision petition as wel_I:
Hence this appeal by special leave.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court_,
HELD : I. It is a well established cannon of construction that the
court should read the section as it is and cannot rewrite it to suit its con-
venience; nor does any cannon of construction permit the court to read the
section in such manner as to render it to some extent otiose. [936D·B]
2:1. 'A private complaint filed in· respect of the offences committe~ by
public 1ervaots as. enunierated io_s. 6 (1) and_(b)_of the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 1952 can be entertained by, the special Judge and taken
c<igaizaace of.
The same is perfectly legal. [9368)
State of Tamil Nadu v. V. Krlshnaswaml Naidu & Anr. [1979] 3 SC.R.
928; Parasnath Pande & Anr. v. State, A.I.R. 1962 Bom. 205; Jagdish
Prasad Verma 11. The State, A.J.R. "i966 PatD!I 15; referred to •.
2'.2. It is a well recognised prineiple of criminal .jurisprudence that
anyone can set or put the cril}1inal Jaw into motion eacept wherC the statute
enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary.
The Scheme of
the Code of Criminal Procedure enviasges two parallel and independent
agencies for taking criminal offences to Court.
Even for the most· serious
offence of murder, it was not ~isputed that a private complaint canExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.