LexJAGANNATH SONU PARKAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 573 JAGANNATH SONU PARKAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (B. P. SINHA, C.J,, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. W ANOHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and J. C. SHAH, JJ.) Criminal Trial-Special Judicial Magistrates-Notifica- tion constituting and conferring pawas on-Change In venue of trial and appealr-If discriminatory-Notification dated Decem- ber 29, 1961, of Bombay Government-Gode of Criminal Proce- dure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), s. 14-Bombay Separation of Judi- cial and ExecutiQe FunctioM Act, 1961 (Bom. 23 of 1961)- CoMfitution af India, Art. U. Section 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by Bombay Act 23 of 1951 , empowered the State Government to appoint a qualified person as a special Magistrate and to confer upon him powers conferrable upon a Judicial Magistrate in respect of a particular case or a particular class or classes of cases or in regard to cases generally in any local area. By a notification dated December 29, 1961, the Government appoin- ted Mr. G to be a Special .Judicial Magistrate for the area comprising Greater Bombay and Ratnagiri District and confer- red upon him all the powers of a Presidency Magistrate in res- pect of the trial of the Deogad Gold Seizure case, The peti- tioners, who are accused in the case, moved the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari for quashing the notification on the ground that the notification and the amended s.14 infringed Art. 14 of the Constitution. Hdd, that the amended s. 14 does not offend Art. 14 and is valid. There is substantially no difference between the powers conferrable by the unamended and by the amended s. 14. M. K. Gopalrtn v. 8tate of Madhya Prade-'h, [1955] 1 S.O.R. 168, relied on. HeUl, further that the notification constituting a Special Magistrate for the trial of the petiti,mers was not discriminatory. Amended s. 14 contemplates both a case which is pending and one which may be instituted after the date of the constitution of the Special Magistrate. The constitution of a Special Magis- trate does not amount directly or indirectly to a transfer of any 1962 Octob1r, 1 J. 1962 J "t'n ruzth Som1 Ptirkar v. 'tale hf Maharashtra i h•h, J. 574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I963]SUPP, case. The fact that Mr. G may hold the trial at Jk,mbay and not at Deogad while other similarly >ituated would he tried at Deogod may result in inconvenience to the petitioner. but this could not sustain the plea of discrimination. The charge against the petitioners is in respect of conspiracy at Bombay, Deogad and other places and the petitioners could have been lawfully tried at Bombay. The notification constituted a Special Magistrate and conferred jurisdiction on him both over the place where the petitioners are alleged to have conspired and the place where the offences are alle!J'ed to have been actu- ally committed. It did not amount to discrimination that from the judgment of the Special Magistrate an appeal would lie to the High Court while if the petitioners were tried by a Magis- trate at Deogad, an appeal would lie to the Sessions Judge and then a revision would lie to the High Court. The difference of the venut results from the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the Magistrate trying the case and not from any unequal dealing by the notification. 01'!18TN.tL Ju1tT~llIOTION: Writ Petition No. 65 of HHl2. Petition m1der Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. A. S. R. Chari, R. K. Garg and K. R. Oha11- dhri, far the petitioners. N. S. Bindra and R. H. Dh~b11r, for the respGR· den.ts. 1962. October 11. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SH.tH, J.-Being in possession of evidence that the petitioners and others w~re concerned in the commission of offences of conspiracy to smuggle gold from foreign countries into the port of D~?gad in the District of Ratnagiri, contrary to the provisions of the Sea Customs Act~ and the Foreien Exchange Regula- tion Act, P. N. Kalyankar, Sub-Inspector.~f Customs and Central Excise, arrested the peut10ners and produced them before the Judicial Magistrate F Class, • 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 575 Deogad. On December 29, 1961, the Government of Maharashtra promulgated a notification m exercise of the powers conferred by s. 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (as amended by Bombay Act XXIII of 1951 in its application to the State of Maharashtra) appointing Mr. V. M. Gehan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.