DHYAN INVESTMENTS AND TRADING CO. LTD. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 80 · Decided: 31-07-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DHY AN INVESTMENTS AND TRADING CO. LTD. 
V. 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS. 
JULY 31, 2001 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code-Section 407-Special Court (Trial of Offences 
Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992-Sections 5, 5A, 6, 7, 9, 10 
C and I I-A-Power of High Court to transfer cases of Special Court--Held, 
Special Court is not subordinate to High Court-Hence, High Court has no 
such power-Constitution of India-Articles, 226, 227 and 235. 
Respondent-agency filed a Criminal case before the Special Court set 
up under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in 
D Securities) Act, 1992 (Special Courts Act) alleging criminal conspiracy by 
appellant-company· to cause unlawful loss to a finance company by sale and 
purchase of the same securities within a period of two days at differing rates. 
The Special Court had only two Judges. The case was listed before Justice T. 
Chief Justice of High Court transferred the case administratively from Justice 
T to Justice K. The appellant filed a Criminal application before the High 
E Court praying for an order of transferring the case from Justice K to Justice 
T. Single Judge of the High Court directed that the Criminal Application be 
placed before a Division Bench. The Division Bench directed the appellant to 
file an application before Justice K of the Special Court for transfer of the 
case. Accordingly the appellant filed an application before Justice K, and it 
F was dismissed. On the same day, the appellant filed an application before the 
High Court seeking some darifications. The application was dismissed. Hence 
the appeals against the said two orders of the High Court. 
The appellant contended that the Special Court is a Criminal Court as 
envisaged by the Cr. P.C. and that provisions of the Code applied to it; that 
G Section 9 of the Special Courts Act deems that the Special Court is a Sessions 
Court; that the Special Court is subordinate to the High Court since it is under 
the superintendel)Ce of the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction under 
Articles 226 and 227 and so the High Court has power to transfer cases of 
the Special Court under Section 407 of the Cr. P.C.; and that if it is held that 
the Special Court is not subordinate to the High Court, then the Special Courts 
H 
80 
QHYAN INVESTMENTS AND TRADING CO. LTD. v. CB.I. 
81 
Act would become unconstitutional since there is no provision for transfer of A 
cases from one Special Court to another. 
The respondent-agency contended that the Special Court is manned by 
sitting Judges of the High Court; that the sitting Judges of the High Court 
take up matters pertaining to the Special Court and of the High Court; that 
a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Special Court Act would B 
show that the Special Court is not a Court subordinate to the High Court; 
that the High Court, though had judicial superintendence, had no 
administrative control over the Special Court; that as per the provisions of 
the Special Court Act, an appeal against the order/judgment of the Special 
Court would lie to the Supreme Court and not to the High Court; and that C 
the mere deeming provision in Section 9 of the Special Courts Act does not 
make it a Court subordinate to the High Court. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court may have judicial superintendence over D 
the Special Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India, however the 
• High Court does not have administrative control over the Special Court under 
Article 235 of the Constitution of India. Also the Special Court is manned by 
a sitting Judge of the High Court. On occasions the same Judge also takes up 
matters of the High Court. As per Section S of the Special Courts Act, if the 
Judge manning the Special Court is absent or on leave, the duties could be E 
performed by another Judge of the High Court nominated by the Chief Justice 
of the High Court in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. It would 
therefore not be in the fitness of things that for purposes of Section 407 
Cr.P.C., a sitting Judge of the High Court, performing simultaneous duties 
be deemed subordinate to the High Court merely because he is trying cases F 
of the Special Court. 
Thus the Special Court is not subordinate to the High Court and the 
High Court would have no power under Section 407 of the Criminal 
Procedure Code to transfer a case from
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.