CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus SUBODH KUMAR DUTTA AND ANR.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 365 · Decided: 17-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

r 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
v. 
SUBODH KUMAR DUTTA AND ANR. 
JANUARY 17, 1997 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND S.B: MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 S.3(}-Repeal and Saving 
clause-Cognizance taken by Special Court under the earlier Act-Saved by 
specific provision collfained in S.30. 
A 
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. C 
46 of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.95 of the Calcutta High 
Court in Crl. R No. 2695 of 1994. 
K.N. Bhat, Additional Solicitor General, S. Wasim A. Qadri and P. D 
Parmeswaran for the Appellant. 
Raj Kumar Gupta and Rajesh for the Respondent No. 1 
Amal Dutta, Dilip Sinha and J.R. Das, for M/s. Sinha and Das for E 
the Respondent No. 2. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Special leave granted. 
This appeal by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter F 
referred to as 'the CBI') arises from the judgment of the High Court of 
Calcutta dated 22.12.1995, allowing criminal revision filed by respondent 
I 
No. 1 and quashing the proceedings of Special Case No. 1 of 1988, pending 
before the learned 2nd Special Judge at Alipore. 
On the basis of an FIR, registered on 28.11.1987 by the CBI on the G 
complaint of Subodh Chandra De, a trap was laid by the officers of the 
CBI on 30.11.1987 and respondent No. 1 Shri Subodh Kumar Dutta was 
..,, 
allegedly caught accepting a bribe of Rs. 700. The CBI filed a charge sheet 
against respondent No. 1 for an offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with 
Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on 11.2.1988, after H 
365 
366 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
completion of the investigation. Cognizance of the offence was taken by 
the learned Special Judge under the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949 
on 9.7.1988. 
B 
It is an admitted case of the parties that the special court which took 
cognizance of the offence had been constituted under the West Bengal 
Special Courts Act, 1949 and not under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 
1952. After. cognizance had been taken by the learned Special Judge, the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 came to be repealed by the Prevention 
of Corruption Act, 1988, with effect from 9.9.1988. Respondent No. 1 
thereupon filed a criminal revision petition in the High Court under 
C Section 401/482 Cr. P.C., seeking quashing of the proceedings in the case 
pending against him before the Special Court in which the principle ground 
raised was the violation of the fundamental right of the accused to a speedy 
trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. During the arguments, 
it appears the High Court also permitted respondent No. 1 to raise a plea 
that the Special· Court trying the bribe case had no jurisdiction to take 
D cognizance of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as 
that court had not been constituted pursuant to Section 3 of the Prevention 
of Corruption Act, 1988 which had repealed the 1947 Act. The learned 
Single Judge appears to have been impressed with this submission made 
on behalf of respondent No. 1. It appears that none appeared for the State 
E before the learned Single Judge at the time of hearing of the petition. 
F 
G 
H 
The learned Single Judge noticed the provisions of Section 26 of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which reads as follows : 
"Special Judges appointed under Act 46 of 1952 to be special Judges 
appointed under this Act. 
Every special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Amend-
ment Act, 1952, for any area or areas and is holding office on the 
commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be a special Judge 
appointed under Section 3 of this Act for that area or areas and, 
accordingly, on and from such commencement, every such Judge 
shall continue to deal with all the proceedings pending before him 
on such commencement in accordance with the provisions of this 
'Act." 
and opined that the cognizance taken by the Special Court on 
C.B.L v. S.K. DUITA 
367 
9.7.1988 under the 1947 Act, was not saved. The learned Single Judge, A 
therefore held that the cognizance had not been taken in accordance with 
law and without referring to the merits of the other contentions raised in 
the revision petition, allowed the same and quashed the proceedings 
pending in the Special Court in Special Court Case No. 1 of 1988. Hence, 
this appeal by special leave. 
Mr. Bhatt, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for 
the appellant, CBI concedes that the Special
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.