UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus B. N. ANANTI PADMANABIAH ETC.

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 460 · Decided: 22-04-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

4-60 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
v. 
B. N. ANANTI PADMANABIAB ETC. 
April 22, 1971. 
B 
rs. M. SIKRI, c. ]., c. A. VAIDIAI!INGAM AND A. N. RAY, ]'J.J 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
B 
Code of Crimmal Procedure, 1898, s. 4]!).-Difference of opinion bet• 
ween two judges of High Court-Reference to third 'judge-Third judRe 
can deal with whole case and entertain new plea. 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, s. SA and Code of Criminal Pro-
cedure, s. 12-Jurisdiction of Magistrate under s. SA does not extend to 
whole of India-Magistrate can exercise jurisdiction under s. SA. through-
out district in which he holds charge but not outside district. 
The appellants were charged with offences under s. 5(2) & 5(1) (c) and 
S(l) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as well as under ss. 467 
and 471 of the Indian Penal Code by the Special Judge, Gauhati. The 
appellants filed revision petitions in the High Court of Assam & Nagaland. 
On difference of opinion arising between the two Judges of the Division 
Bench reference was made to a third Judge under s. 429 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure. 
Before the third Judge a new plea was advanced 
on behalf of the appellants, namely that tho Magistrate at Delhi had no 
jurisdiction to accord sanction to an Inspector of the Delhi Special Police 
Establishment to investigate the case .in Assam. The third Judge held that 
an order of a Magistrate of the local jurisdiction was necessary and ex-
cepting a Magistrate of the District where the crime was committed no 
other Magistrate outside the jurisdiction could make an order for investi-
gation. In the result the proceedings before the Special Judge were quash-
ed. In appeal by certificate to this Court, 
HELD: (i) The contention that the third learned Judae could only 
deal with the difference between the two learned Judges and not with the 
whole case could not be accepted. The language of s. 429 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure is explicit that the case with tho opinion of the 
Judges comprising the court of appeal shall be laid before another Judae 
of the same court. The other noticeable feature in s. 429 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure is that the judgment or order shall follow the opinion 
of the third learned Judge. Further more, the appeal is from the order 
of the third learned Judge as it must be by reason of the divided opinion 
of the Bench. [4630] 
Hethuba & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, Cr. A. No. 100/67 dl 13-3-1970, 
followed. 
(ii) Section 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the State 
Government to appoint besides the District Magistrate, Magistr~tes of the 
first, second or third class in any district and tho State Government may 
from time to time define local areas within which such Magistrate may 
exercise all or any of the powers with which they may be invested under 
the Code. Section 12(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure enacts that 
except as otherwise provided the jurisdiction and powers of such Magis-
trates shall extend throuahout such district It therefore follows that the 
Maaistrates of the first class of a district have powers within defined local 
areas within tho district and their jurisdiction and powers may in certain 
UNION V. B. N •. ANANTI (Ray,J.) 
461 
cases extend throughout such district The Magistrate at Delhi can in 
A 
certain cases exercise jurisdiction and power throughout the district where 
he is appointed. [464E·G] 
It will not be in consonance with the jurisdiction and structure of 
courts of Magistrates to allow an order of investigation to be made by a 
Magistrate of Delhi for investigatiQri of a case in the State of Assam. The 
reason is that a Magistrate orders investigation in a case which he has 
power to inquire into or try. The real import of s. SA of the Prevention 
B 
of Corruption Act is that investigation is to be done by Police Officers of a 
certain rank to ensure protection agaj.nst frivolous, prosecution, and it is 
only with the order of Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the fi.-st 
class that Police Officers below the ran~ mentioned in the section are al· 
lowed to investigate. It is therefore appropriate that Magistiates in Presi· 
dency towns or District will. order investigation of cases within their res-
pective jurisdiction. The effect of s. SA of the Prevention of Corruption 
C 
Act, is that it is a special Act which confers power on Presidency Magistrates 
throughout the Presidency town and Magistrates of the first class through· 
out the District 

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