NAR BAHADUR BHANDARI AND ANR. versus STATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 421 · Decided: 13-05-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. SRINIVASAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

NAR BAHADUR BHANDARI AND ANR. 
A 
4. • 
v. 
STATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS 
..... 
MAY 13, 1998 
[M. SRINIVASAN AND S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 : 
Sections 1(e), 3, 13(2), 26 and JO-Special Judge, appointed under c 
Section 3-0ffences registered under the provisions of the Act of 1947, 
repealed by the Act of 1988-Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 provided 
for constitution of Special Courts to try the offences under the Act of 1947-
Not extended to the State of Sikkim-Charge sheet filed in the Court of 
Special Judge constituted under the Act of 1988-Held, such offences could 
be tried by the Special Judge appointed under the Act, of 1988-General D 
Clauses Act, 1897, Section 6-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Sections 
..... _ 
5(2), 5(/)(d} and 5(J}(e)-Criminal law (Amendment) Act, Section 6-
Statute law-Repeal. 
Section 3-Jurisdiction of Special Judge-Proper mode of interpretation 
of the provision of Section 3-Held, should be read with other provisions of E 
the Act and not in isolation-Interpretation ef Statutes-Particular statutes 
and provisions. 
Section 30(2)-legal fiction-Held, the fiction is to the effect that the 
Act of I 988 had come into force when any thing done or action taken under 
or in pursuance of the Act of I 947-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947- F 
Statute Law-Legal Fiction. 
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was extended to the State of 
Sikkim w.e.f.1-9-1976. The Appellants were Chief Minister and an IAS 
officer of the State. The CBI had registered against them a case under G 
Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) and Section 5(2) read with Section 
5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on two different dates in 
1984. However, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952, which provided 
;_ 
for constitution of Special Courts to try the offences under.the Act of 1947 
and excluded the jurisdiction of the other courts, was not extended to the 
State. Therefore, no Special Court was constituted in the state to try the H 
421 
422 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998) 3 S.C.R. 
A offences under the Act of 1947. In 1994, the CBI filed its report in the 
appellants' case before the Special Court constituted under Section 3 of the 
Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 and charges were framed by it 
against the appellants. Thereafter, the appellant raised a preliminary objection 
to the competence of the Special Judge to try the aforesaid offences. The 
B Special Judge upheld the preliminary objection and dropped the case against 
the appellants. This order of the Special Judge was challenged before the 
High Court by the State and the CBI. The High Court held that the Special 
Judge appointed under Section 3 of the Act of 1988 had jurisdiction to 
entertain the charge sheet filed under the provisions of the Act of 1988 with 
regard to the offences committed under the Act of the 1947. Hence this 
C appeal 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. No doubt, Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1988 refers only to offences punishable under the Act and the Special 
D Courts constituted under Section 3 of the Act will have jurisdiction to try 
the offences punishable under the Act, but Section 3 cannot be read in 
isolation. It should be read alongwith other provisions of the Act to undei;stand 
the scope thereof. Section 30(1) of the Act of 1988 repeals the Acts of 1947 
and 1952. That does not mean that any offence which was committed under 
the Act of 1947 would cease to be triable after its repeal. Normally Section 
E 6 of the General Clauses Act would come into play and enable the continuation 
of the proceedings including investigation as if the repealing Act had not 
been passed. As per the provision of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 
the position will be as if the Act of 1947 continues to be in force for the 
purpose of trying the offence within the meaning of the said Act. Section 6 
F of the General Clauses Act however, makes it clear that the said position will 
not obtain if a different intention appears in the repealing Act In the present 
case, the Act 1988 is the repealing Act. Section 30(2) of the Act while on 
the one hand ensures that the application of Section 6 of the General Clauses 
Act is not prejudiced, on the other it express different intention as 
contemplated by the said Section 6. The last part of the Section 30(2) 
G introduces a legal fiction whereby anything done or action taken under or 
in pursua

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.