LexSTATE OF WEST BENGAL versus BEJOY KUMAR BOSE ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A • B c D E F G H 382 STAIB OF WEST BENGAL v. BEJOY KUMAR BOSE ETC. ETC. December ? , 1977 [P. K. GOSWA.VII AND V. D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.J West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, Sections 4(1) and 5--Scopc of-Cogn~1zance of the offences mentioned in the Act by Special Judge-Whether it is obligatory for the Special Judge to examine the conr- plainilnl ul s. 200 of Crimitwl Procedure Code, prior to issuing process. A criminal case arising out of a complaint made against the accused Includ- ing the respondents who happened to be public servants at the material time, for the alleged offences u/s. 120-B/379/466/468/471 I.P.C. was allotted by the State Government through a notification No. 3165-J dt. 8-4-70 to the Third Additional Special Court, Calcutta constituted under the provisions of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act. Following the noti- fication, the appellant State through Ranjit Roy, Sub Inspector of Police filed a complaint before the Special Court on 11-9-70 detailing all the allegations against the accused and including the material facts -that transpired in the course of the investigation of the case. The Special Court Judge after perusal of the-. complaint and bearing the Public Prosecutor, took cognizance Of the caSe u/s. 409 /109 aud 409/34 I.P.C. which are offences mentioned in the Schedule of the Act, and issued processes to the· accused. In the trial after examining 70 · witnesses, the prosecution closed its case on May 2, 1974. The court framed: charges against four accused including the respondents and discharged the re- maining two accused by its order dated 26-2-1975. Charges were framed under various sections including SS. 409 and 420 read with l'I, 120-B I.P.C. The revision petitions moved by the respondents for quashing the trial on March. 25, 1.975, were accepted by the Calcutta High Ciurt following its earlier deci-· sions dated 29-3-1967 and 11-4-1975. The High Court held that no legal aud valid cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Judge, Special COurt and, therefore, the entire proceedings became vitiated. Allowing the appeal by certificate, the Court, HELD : (1) It is not obligatory for the Special Judge to examine com- plainant under s. 200 Cr. P. C. Under s. 4(2) of the West Bengal Criminal1 Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, the allotment by the State Government to the Special Judge of a case involving of scheduled offences vests the neces~ sary jurisdiction in the Special Judge to proceed to trial and is, therefore, equivalent to that courts' taking cognizance of the offence. [385 G, 386 A·B] Ajit Kumar Pa/it v. State of West Bengal [1963] Supp. (1) SCR 953 @ 965-966, followed. (2) Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code in terms, comes into play after taking cognizance of an offence by a Magistrate. [386 D] GopGl Das Sindhi & Ors. v. State of Assa1n & Anr. AIR 1961 SC 986, 988 and 989, referred to. (3) There is nothing in s. 5 ( 1 ) of the Act even after the amendment in 1960 to compel the Special Judge to comply with the provisions of s-. 200 Cr. P. C. The words "in the manner laid down in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-s. (!) of s. 190 of the Criminal Procedure. Code 1898" do not automatically introduce the provisions of s. 200 Cr. P. C. of Chapter XVI, nor do the above words in •· 5 (2) of the Act, mandatorily compel the Special Judge to resort" to the provisions of Chapter XVI. The legislature ~ the above amendment has advisedly omitted to include s. 200 Cr. P. C. and the other provisions in Chapter XVI of the Criminal Procedure Code. [385 H, 386 A, E, F] (4) Because of ·the amendment of s. 5(2) 'in 1960, it may now be open· to th~ Special Judge to apply his judicial mind to the complaint apart from) ~ 'STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. B. K. BOSE (Goswami,!.) 383 .allotment of . the s;:ase in order to come to a decision as to whether he is satis~ fied on the materials laid before him at that stage to take cognizance of the -o~ence , and proceed to .trial. If he chooses to examine the complainant or any witness before issuing process against any accused, there is nothing in Jaw to prevent him from doing so. If he does not do so and is satisfied on perusal -0~ the complaint after allotment of the case by the Government that an offence has b.een disclosed against definite persons, no valid objection could be taken against his taking cognizance on the written complain
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.