LexVASANT ARJUNRAO BHANDAK versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- VASA NT ARJUNRAO BHAN PAK A v. STATE OF KARNATAKA NOVEMBER 12, 2002 [UMESH C. BANERJEE AND B.N. AGARWAL, JJ.] B Prevention of Corruption Act, I 988-Sections 3, 26, 30(2)---Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952-Section 6-Appointment of 'Special Judge'- Applicabi/ity of Section 6 to 1988 Act-Held, applicable by virtue of deeming C fiction-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Interpretation of Statutes-In order to have proper efficacy to the statutory intent, the Act shall have to be read as a whole-A deeming fiction has to be given effect to and any contra view would lead to a violent departure from the canons of construction and interpretation of statutes. D Appellant, being prosecuted for offences under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 filed applications praying to discharge him, on the ground that the trial Judge had no jurisdiction to try the case against him as the appointment of the trial Judge could not be termed to be an appointment as a 'Special Judge' within the meaning of Section 3 E of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Application of the appellant was rejected by trial Court. His petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was also dismissed by High Court. In appeal to this Court the question for consideration was whether issuance of a notification u/s 6 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, F appointing 'Special Judge' for any specified area to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 would also hold good for the purpose of Section 3 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. It is not correct to say that the applicability of Section 26 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is restrictive in its nature and thus applicable only to prior proceedings pending before the Special Judge on G the commenc•ment of the Act or to say that any other construction would render the legislative intent a complete otiose and thus a fresh notification H 57 58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 4 S.C:R. A under Section 3 of the Act is required to enable the appointment of Special Judges for proceeding with the new cases under the 1988 Act. 111 order to have proper efficacy to the statutory intent, the Act shall have to be read as a whole and introduction of Section 26 in the Statute Book has brought into existence a deeming fiction which have to be given effect to and any B contra view would lead to a violent departure from the normal canons of construction and interpretation of statutes. The deeming fiction cannot but be read into the statute in view of repeal and saving provision as contained in Section 30(2) of 1988 Act. [60-G; 61-C-DJ 2. On consideration of the entire. facts of the case and having regard C to Section 30(2) and 26 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in particular Section 26 thereof, the question of there being a contra view, does not and cannot arise and thus the Principal Sessions Judge has the authority and jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 164-B-q Nar Bahadur Bhandari and Anr. v. State of Sikkim and Ors., [1998) 5 D SCC 39 and Bishambar Nath Kohli and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.. 11966] 2 SCR 158, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1138 of 2002. E From the Judgment and Order dated 19.7.2001 of the Karnataka High F Court in Crl. P. No. 3431 of 2000. S.S. Javali, S.K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni and Vijay Kumar, for the Appellants. Sanjay R. Hegde and Satya Mitra, for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BANERJEE, J. Leave granted. G A short but an interesting question of law falls for consideration in this appeal against the order of the High Court of Kamataka, wherein the High Court dismissed the Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings pending before -the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Special Case No.22/94 : the question of law noticed above pertains to whether issuance of a notification under Section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment H Act, 1952, appointing the Special Judge for any specified area to-try offences - ·,I ,, VASANT ARJUNRAO BHANDAK v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [BANERJEE, J.] 59 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 194 7 would also hold good for the A· purpose of Section 3 of the Act of 1988 (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) as well" Adve11ing to the factual score briefly at this juncture it appears that the Appellant being charge
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.