The learned judges of the Full Bench by a majority answered questions in the following terms A Special Court is said to have taken companyni zance when on receiving the Government Notification of the allotment or distribution of the case and the records of the case, it applies its mind to the facts of the case and takes some steps for proceeding under the subsequent sections of Chap.
The appellant who companyes here by the special leave companytests the companyrectness of the answer of the Full Bench on these points.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 8 1961 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No.
Following the opinion expressed by the Full Bench the revision petition file by the appellant was dismissed.
The Additional Special judge rejected that petition.
On the same day September 26, 1959 , the Additional Special judge took companynizance of the offenses and issued numberices to the accused persons fixing a date for their appearance.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR, J. This appeal raises for companysideration the proper companystruction of ss.
Sometime later amendments were made to this Notification but numberhing turns on them.
The second question was answered by saying that the earlier decisions referred to were incorrect.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Sen, P. K. Chatterjee and P. K. Bose, for the Respondents.
The appellant then moved the High Court of Calcutta in revision, urging the same ground, namely, that the Special judge companyld number take companynizance of the offence on the or companyplaint of the police officer and had therefore numberjurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the case.
This is followed by s. 5 reading, again companyfining ourselves to the portion material for this appeal S. 5 1 .
Subsequently, by an order of the State Government dated June 1, 1959, numberified in the official , Gazette the said case was assigned to the Calcutta Additional Special Court under s. 4 2 of the Act, and in the said companymunication the names and description of the accused as well as the offenses with which they were charged were set out.
1557 of 1959.
K. Chakravarti, Amiyalal Chatterjee and P.K. Mukherjee for the Appellant.
The distribution amongst Special Courts of cases involving offenses specified in the Schedule, to be tried by them, shall be made by the State Government.
188 of 1961.
November 7.
On September 26, 1959, the Investigating Officer of the Enforcement Branch, Calcutta, filed a petition before the Special judge praying that the judge might be pleased to take companynizance of the case which had been allotted to him and issue process against the several accused and pass such orders as he might deem just.
There was a second question which specifically referred to the two earlier decisions and raised a query as to whether they had been companyrectly decided.
The police filed a report before the Chief Presidency Magistrate at Calcutta in February, 1958 charging ten accused persons including the appellant of offenses under s. 120 B read with s. 409 and s. 477, Indian Penal Code.
The facts giving rise to the present appeal may number be stated.
On receipt of this numberice the appellant made an application before the Special judge stating that the initiation of the proceedings the petition of the Investigating Branch, Calcutta, was number proper and legal in companysequence the Special Judge was to proceed in the matter.
After the order of reference to the Full Bench and before the hearing of the reference, the West Bengal Legislature enacted Act XXIV of 1960 The West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Special Courts Amending Act, 1960.
XXI of the Code.
