LexDY. CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS versus ROSHANLAL AGARWAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I ~ DY. CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS A v. ROSHANLAL AGARWAL AND ORS. MARCH 5, 2003 [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947; Section 5/Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section I 1(1) rlw Section 2(J), Sections 26, 245 & 482: Issuance of notifications by the State under the Provisions ofCr.P.C.- Estab/ishment of Special Court for trial of offences under the specified Acts- Tria/ of offences under the Penal Code-Challenge to-Rejected by Special Court-Revision Petitions dismissed by Sessions Court-Petition under Section B c 482 Cr.P. C. allowed by High Court holding that Special Court could only t1y D offences under the specified Acts-On appeal, held, since only effect of notification was trial of offences under various Acts by the Special Court, it 1s wrong to conclude that Special Court presided by a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, lost the jurisdiction to try offences under the Penal Code when such powers or jurisdiction were not curtailed by the notification-Penal Code, 1860; Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B /PC. E Practice and Procedure: Complaint by a public servant-Initiation of proceedings by Judicial Magistrate Special Court without recording statement and reasons- Correctness of-Held: When Judicial Magistrate is satisfied that sufficient F ground exists for proceeding against the accused, he is neither required to record reasons before issuance of process nor _required to record the statement of the public servant who has filed the complaint in discharge of his official duty. Appellant-Authority filed complaints against respondents for offences G committed under various provisions of IPC and Imports and Exports (Control) Act. Applications of the respondents for their discharge was rejected by the Special Court (Economic Offences). Revision applications were dismissed by the Court of Sessions. Respondents' petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were allowed by the High Court holding that the Special Court had H 621 I 622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) 2 S.C.R. A no jurisdiction to try offences under the Penal Code; besides, the complainant was not examined under the provisions of Cr.P.C. Hence the present appeal filed by the Authority. It was contended for the appellant that merely because Special Courts were established on the basis of notification to deal with offences under certain B Acts, such Courts would not be divested of jurisdiction to try offences under the Penal Code. On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that since the jurisdiction of the Court was confined to Acts specified in the Schedule of notification, it C could not try other offences including under the IPC. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The Imports and Exports (Control) Act does not make any provision for regulating the manner of trying of offences under the Act and, D therefore, they have to be inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These provisions show that all the offences under the Indian Penal Code, which according to the allegations made in the complaints have been committed by the respondents, are triable by a Magistrate of the First Class. (626-B-E] E 1.2. State Government can issue a notification for creation of a Special Court under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 Cr.P.C which nowhere says that upon issuance of such a notification the concerned Judicial Magistrate would be divested of the power and jurisdiction Which he otherwise had under the Code. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, who by virtue of the notification became a Special Court (Economic Offences), was not divested F of the jurisdiction which he otherwise possessed under Section 26 of the Code. Therefore, the Spedal Court (Economic Offences), which is presided by a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, continued to have the jurisdiction to try the offences under the Indian Penal Code, which he was otherwise empowered in view of First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The language G of the notification also does not show that powers or jurisdiction of a Judicial Magistrate, who is to perform the functions of a Special Cou:rt (Economic Offences) to try the offences under the Acts mentioned in the Schedule are being affected or curtailed in any manner. Thus, the Special Court (Economic Offences) before whom the complaints had
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.