LexPRADEEP S. WODEYAR versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 985 [2021] 11 S.C.R. 985 985 PRADEEP S. WODEYAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 1288 of 2021 NOVEMBER 29, 2021 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, VIKRAM NATH AND B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 193, 209 and 465 – Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 – Special Court’s power to take cognizance – Allegations of purchasing and selling extracted iron ore illegally without mining dispatch permits and the payments of charges to the Mining and Geological Departments and the Forest Department – FIR registered and a final report u/s. 173 of Cr.P.C. submitted – Additional City and Civil Sessions Judge and Special Judge took cognizance after perusing the final report – Petitions filed before the High Court u/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings were dismissed – Before the Supreme Court, the appellant-accused contended that the Special Court (which is a Sessions Court) is not empowered to take cognizance of offences without the case being committed to it, in view of s.193 CrPC – Since the Magistrate did not commit the case to the Special Court before it took cognizance of the offences in the instant case, it has been contended that the order taking cognizance is vitiated as it is without jurisdiction and it has led to failure of justice – Held : The Special Court does not have, in the absence of a specific provision to that effect, the power to take cognizance of an offence under the MMDR Act without the case being committed to it by the Magistrate u/s. 209 CrPC – The order of the Special Judge dated 30.12.2015 taking cognizance is therefore irregular – However, the objective of s.465 is to prevent the delay in the commencement and completion of trial – S.465 CrPC is applicable to interlocutory orders such as an order taking cognizance and summons order as well – Therefore, even if the order taking cognizance is irregular, it would not vitiate the proceedings in view of s.465 CrPC – As fas as failure of justice is concerned, the cardinal principle that guides s.465(2) CrPC is that the challenge to an irregular order must be urged at the earliest A B C D E F G H 986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R. – In the instant case, the cognizance order was challenged by the appellant two years after cognizance was taken – No reason was given to explain the inordinate delay – Moreover, in view of the diminished role of the committal court u/s. 209 of the Code of 1973 as compared to the role of the committal court under the erstwhile Code of 1898, the gradation of irregularity in a cognizance order made in Sections 460 and 461 and the seriousness of the offence, no failure of justice has been demonstrated. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 193 – Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 – Cognizance of the offence and not the offender – The Special Judge by an order mentions that cognizance is taken against the accused – Whether merely because the cognizance order mentions that cognizance is taken against the ‘accused’, the entire proceedings would be vitiated – Held : It is a settled principle of law that cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender – However, the cognizance order indicates that the Special Judge has perused all the relevant material relating to the case before cognizance was taken – The change in the form of the order would not alter its effect – The order taking cognizance inadvertently mentioned that the Special Judge has taken cognizance against the accused instead of the offence – This would not vitiate the entire proceedings. Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 193, 220 – Penal Code, 1860 – Cognizance by the Special Court of the offences under IPC – It was contended that even if the Special Judge had the power to take cognizance of the offence, he could only have taken cognizance of offences under the MMDR Act and could not have taken cognizance (and conduct trial) of the offences under the provisions of IPC – Held : Since offences under IPC are alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction as the offences under the MMDR Act, the situation is squarely covered by sub-section (1) of s.220 of CrPC – The Special Court has the power to take cognizance of offences under MMDR Act and conduct a joint trial with other offences if per
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.