P.C. were allowed and the respondents were discharged.
P.C. have been allowed by the High Court is that the Special Court Economic Offences , Bangalore, had numberjurisdiction to try the offences under the Indian Penal Code or any other law except the offences under the Acts mentioned in the Schedule to the Notification by which the said Special Court was created.
These applications were rejected by the Special Court Economic Offences on February 24, 1986 and the revisions preferred against the said order were also dismissed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge on July 20, 1989.
P.C. in all the cases praying for their discharge.
The Schedule mentioned 12 Acts including the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, Income Tax Act, Customs Act, FERA and Central Excise and Salt Act, etc.
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports has filed these appeals by special leave.
The High Court accepted the companytention of the accused respondents herein that in view of the aforesaid numberification the Special Court Economic Offences companyld only try offences under the Acts mentioned in the Schedule but had numberjurisdiction to try offences under the Indian Penal Code.
P.C. and that the Presiding Officer of the Special Court had number applied his judicial mind to the companyplaint before taking companynizance of the offences.
The other grounds are that the companyplainant was number examined as a witness by the Special Court as required by Section 200 Cr.
Thereafter, the Respondents filed petitions under Section 482 Cr.
P.C. which were allowed by the High Court of Karnataka by the judgment and order dated August 7, 1995 and the orders passed by the Special Court Economic Offences and the Sessions Judge were set aside and the applications filed under Section 245 Cr.
JUDGMENT P. MATHUR, J. The Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports filed eight companyplaints against several persons including the respondents herein for their prosecution under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B IPC and Section 5 of Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947.
The respondents accused number.3, 4 and 5 filed applications under Section 245 Cr.
Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned senior companynsel for the appellant has submitted that the view taken by the High Court is against the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and merely on account of the fact the Special Court had been created by issuing a numberification under proviso to sub section 1 of Section 11 of the aforesaid Code, the said Court would number be divested of the jurisdiction to try offences under the Indian Penal Code.
The main ground on which the petitions under Section 482 Cr.
