STATE OF TAMIL NADU versus V. KRISHNNASWAMI NAIDU & ANR.

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 928 · Decided: 03-05-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

D 
E 
r 
c 
lf 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
v. 
V. KRISHNNASW AMI NAIDU & ANR. 
May 3~ 1979 
[S. Muli.TAZA FAZAL ALI AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] 
Criminal I.Dw (A.mtnclmtnt) Act, 1952 (66 of 1952)-Sptclal ludge-
W'htthi!r can txtrdu powtr undtr S. 167 Cr. P. C. to aurhorist dtttntion of an 
Grcust4 /11 polict cu8tody. 
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 (66 of 1952) was enacted on 
28-7-52 to further amend the Indian Penal Code, ·1860 nnd tbe Criminal Pro-
cedure Code, 1898 and to provide for a more speedy trial of offence. Section 
(f of the Act enables the State Government by notification in the official gazette 
to appoint Special Judges to try offences punishable under Sections 161-165Aof 
tbe Indian Penal Code or Section S of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 
The Special Judge thus appointed ahall not be qualified for appointment aa a 
Special Judge under the Act unless he ia or hal been a Sessions Judge or an 
Add!. Sessions Judge or an Asstt. Sessions Tudgc under the Code of Criminal 
Procedure 1898. Section 7 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in 
the Code of Criminal Pr~dure 1898 or in any other law, the offence specified in 
Sub-eection 1 of Section 6 ehnll be triable by a Special Judge only. · By Section 
S the Special Tudge is empowered to take cogn.iz.ance of en ofl'ence without the 
accused being commit~ to him for trial and in trying the accused persons he 
il required to follow the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Proce· 
dure In the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates. Section 8(A) empowers the 
·Special Judge to try «rt.ain offenoet in a aummary way end the rrovisions of 
Section 262 to 265 o( the Crimlnt~l Procedure Code arc m11de applic&ble so far 
u they may apply. 
Tbc rccponc!ents were lllTeeted by the Vi&ilance end Anti-Corruption Unit of 
the StAte Government for alleged otfenco under tho Prevention of Corruption. 
Act. They were produced before the Spe<:ia.l Judge on the following day. 'I11• 
rc.tpondents• application for enlu1ement on bail wu dismis3ed by the Special 
1\ldae. Tho Police moved the SP«ial Jud&e for committing tho respondl!ni.J to 
pollee c:w;tody for 1$ daye. Tho1•gh the arplication wn' rejected another one 
wa. med. 
The r~pondcnts there upor~ moved the Jllgh Court for ( 1) a direction. tbat 
~ey ahould bo kePt ln judicial custody pe11ding inYestiptlon of the crime anJ 
(.) tor qua.~h!.ng au: llppllcatlon before the Special Judge by the pollee tor com-
m!ttlnt thtm to pollee cuetody: contendtns that Special Judge I• not ,. Magis-
trate u d~ftn~ In the Crimlnal Proc:.e4ure Code an<! u euch not empowered to 
fact ~er Secuoo 167 or the Criminal Procedure Code llnd to place tho accu~ed 
Jl fO•ICO CIUtody, 
~ w,b Court accepted tht contention and Jranted relit(. 
}.lto•llll the •PP"l. 
\. 
l 
t 
l 
! 
'! 
' 
I 
I , . 
. 1 
~ 
• 
, . 
f"• 
• 
I • 
TAMIL NADU v. V. K. NAIDU 
i21 
HELD: 1. Th• Special. Jud~ notified ullder 1. 6 the Criminal Law (Amend-
A 
llltDI) Act 1952 can exen:lllc tho power conferred on a Macistrato under 1. 167 
of tb• Criminal Procedure Code to a11thorise detention of the accused ill. the 
cm1odY of th• polico. 
[936Cj 
2. Section 8 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, apccifica!ly empowefl 
tbe Special Judge to take COi!lizance of the offence without the accused bei~ 
committed to him for trial. In taking: cognizance o! an offence without the 
B 
accuKd being committed to him he is not a S=iona Judge for Section 193 
Cr. P.C. provides that no Court of Sessiona Judge shall t:~k:e cognizance for any 
otlence ;u a Court of original jurisdiction unless the ca!e has been committed to 
it by a Magistrate under the Code. Strictly he it not a Se..sions Judge for no 
Se&~iollll Judlle can take coinizance u a Court of Session• without committnt. 
[934C·Dl 
C 
3. The Criminal Law (Amendment} Act being on amending Act the provi· 
sio111 are intended to provide for a 1peedy trial o! certain offences. The Criminal 
Law (Amendment) Act ia not intended to be a complete Code relating to pro-
cedure. The provisions of the Cr.P.C. are not excluded unless they are incon-
tillent with the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act Thus read there can be no 
difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the Criminal Procedure Code il 
D 
applie<~ble when there is no conflict with the provision' of the Criminal Lnw 
( . .O.mendment) Act. [934 EJ 
4. If a Special Judge who is empowered to take cognizance without com· 
mittal is not empowered to exercise powers of reman
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.