LexSTATE OF WEST BENGAL versus FALGUNI DUTTA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
\
F
G
H
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
v.
FALGUNI DUTTA AND ANOTHER
MAY 5, 1993
[A.M. AHMADI AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.]
Essentiol Commodities Act 1955-Sections 12A. 12M, 7(1) (a) (ii) read
with Sections 167 (5), 262 to 265, Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973~.ffences
u11der-Trial-S11111111ary way-Legislative imention.
Essemiol Commodities Act, 1955-Section 12A-Special Court Whether
empowered to exercise powers 1t!s. 167 (5), Code of Criminal Proced11re. 1973.
Essential Commodities Act, 1955-Sections 7 (1) (a) {ii), 2A read with
Section 167( 5 ), Code of Criminal Proce[lure-Charge Sheet filed after expi 1y of
six months from the date of arrest of accused-Special Court's power to take
cognizance, II}' and punish-Scope of
On 16.3.1984, the police raided the business premise and godown of the
respondents and sized certain essential commodities which were stored there
in contravention of certain orders issued under section 3 read with section 5
of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On the same day the respondents
were arrested for th·e commission of an offence punishable under section 7(1)
(a) (ii) of the Act. But chargesheet was submitted under section 173, Code of
Criminal Procedure on 30.9.1986, after expiry of the period of six months.
The Special Court constituted under section 12A took cognizance of the
offence on 13.3.1987 on the basis of the charge-sheet.
The respondent No. I moved an application before the Special Court to
quash the proceeding since the case was triable as a summon case in \'iew of
section 12AA (1) (t) of the Essential Commodities Act, sub-section (5) of
Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure was attracted.
Relying on the decision in Kanta Dey v. The State of West Bengal (1986)
Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter 158, the Special Court rejected the applica-
tion holding thatthe provision of section 167 (5) of the Code had no application
to a case initiated for the commission of an offence punishable under section
7(1) (a) (ii) of the Act.
570
STA lE OF WEST BRNGAL v. FALGUNI DUTTA.
571
Respondents' revision application against the order of Special Court~ A
was allowed by Single.Judge of the High Court. The High Court relying on the
decision in Public Prosecutor, Higlt Court of Hyderabad v.Anjaneyulu, (1986)
Criminal Law Journal 1456, held that sub-section (5) of section 167 of the
Code stood attracted. On the High court quashing the prosecution, the
respondents were discharged. The present appeal by special leave was fded
by the State against the order of the High Court.
B
On the questions, 1 whether a Special Court constituted under "Section
12A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is empowered to exercise powers
under section 167 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in relation to
an accused person forwarded to it under section 12AA (1) (b) of the Act and
(ii) whether a Special Court can take cognizance of the off enc~ and proceed
to try and punish the accused person, notwithstanding the fact that the
charge-sheet is fded after expit•y of the period of six months from the date of
arrest of the accused person?", partly allowing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: 1.1. From the plain language of the provisions introduced by Act
18 of1981 the legislature desired to-ensure that all offences under the Act were
tried by the Special Court constituted under section 12A in a summary
manner applying the provisions of sections 262 to 265 of the Code and further
provided that in case of conviction the sentence shall not exceed two years,
bringing the offence within the definition of a summons-case under the Code.
Hut for the insertion of section 12A in its present form and section 12AA, the
offence under section 7 (I) (a) (ii) of the Act would ha\'e attracted the definition
of a warrant-case. (578-D)
1.2. The avowed object of these legislative changes was expeditious
disposal of offences under the Act by Special Courts employing summary
procedure and applying the p1·ovisions of the Code to such trials sa\•e as
otherwise provided. This enahled the Special Courts to take cognizance of the
offences under the Act without a formal order of commitment. (578-C)
c
D
E
F
1.3. After the constitution of Special Courts all offences under the Act
have to be tried by that court in a summary ways by applying the provisions
G
of sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the Code. The prO\·iso places a fetter
on the power of the Court in the matterExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.