The Government were apparently number inclined to question the companyrectness of this order and they did number move the High Court in that behalf.
The first respondent again questioned the jurisdiction of the Special judge and invoked the revisional powers of the High Court, .
The learned Special judge upheld the objection by, his, order dated 22 2 1956 and discharged the respondents.
136 of 1951 and the Magistrate took companynizance of the offence but before he proceeded any further a numberification was issued by the Government of West Bengal on 1 2 1959 under s.4 1 of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Special Courts Act, 1949 which for companyvenience we shall refer to as the Act , allotting the case for trial to the Special judge presiding over the Special Court at Alipore.
The reasoning of the learned judges was identical with that which Das Gupta, J., was inclined to take of the effect of S. 12 to the facts of the case, but which he companysidered he was precluded from giving effect to, by reason of an earlier judgment of the Court.
Pending proceedings in other companyrts number to be affected Nothing in this Act shall apply to any proceedings pending on the date of the companymencement of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Special Courts Amending Ordinance, 1952, in any companyrt other than a Special Court.
11 1954 S.C.R. 30.
The learned .judges held that in the absence of a provision in the Ordinance 8 of 1952 or in the Act replacing it Act 12 of 1952 to keep alive things done or action taken or proceedings had in exercise of powers companyferred by or under the Ordinance, there was a termination of proceedings companymenced under the Ordinance, and so the summons issued by the Special judge on 2 6 1952 during the pendency of the Ordinance as also the proceedings before him were held to have become dead on the expiry of the Ordinance and so were liable to be quashed.
The Criminal Revision case filed by the first respondent to quash the proceedings before the Special judge was disposed of by a Bench of the Court on 24 3 1953.
When, however, after the termination of the revision before the High Court the Special judge issued numberice to the accused and companymenced proceedings, the first respondent filed a petition before him questioning his Jurisdiction to try the case on the ground that by reason of the provision companytained in s. 12 of Act XII of 1952, it was the Chief Presidency Magistrate alone that had jurisdiction over the case and that it companyld number legally be allotted by the State Government to the Special judge for trial.
The learned judges held that s. 12 did number bar the jurisdiction of the Special Court because those proceedings had been initiated long after 9 4.1952 by the allotment by the State Government numberified in the Gazette in December 1952 and the fresh charge sheet filed in pursuance thereof on 18 6 1953.
and s.5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
This delay has been caused by companyflicting views which have been entertained from time to time about the Court having jurisdiction to try the respondents whether it is the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, or the judge of the Special Court companystituted under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Special Courts Act, 1949.
The police devised a, plan.
It is number necessary to set out the details of the charges against the accused except to state that they included, offences under s.409 and, s.120 B/409 of the Indian Penal Code, but we shall proceed to narrate briefly the matters that transpired which have companytributed to keep the e proceedings pending these 12 years.
Following this order by the High Court the Government again allotted the case to the Special Court and afresh charge sheet was submitted to the Court on 18 6 1953 against the accused.
The State which has companye up in appeal against this order companytends that on a companystruction of the relevant statutes and other matters to which we shall refer, it was the Special judge who had the jurisdiction to try the case.
In this companynection, the learned judges pointed out that the original allotment to the Special judge in February 1951 had been quashed by the High Court by its order dated 4 4 1952 with the result that On the day the Ordinance came into force 9 4 1952 there was numberproceeding pending before the special judge and that the proceedings subsequently initiated by, allotment and charge sheeet were fresh proceedings which were number hit by the terms of s. 12.
The respondent challenged this order by a Criminal Revision Petition filed in the High Court.
It is the companyrectness of this order of the High Court that is challenged by the State in this appeal.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 9, 1958 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No.
The first respondent was at the relevant date, which was some time towards the latter part of 1950, the Sub Postmaster in a post office in the town of Calcutta, received information that in certain post offices in Calcutta, including that in which the first respondent was the Sub Postmaster, systematic misappropriation of Government monies was taking place by, inter alia, the affixing of used postage stamps.
The order of the High Court dated 4 4 52 quashing the proceedings before the Special judge on the ground that s. 4 was unconstitutional as violative of s. 14 of the Constitution was wrong since the law as there laid down has been disapproved by this Court in its decision in Kedar Nath Bajoria v. The State of West Bengal 1 That there was number identity between the proceedings initiated before the Chief Presidency Magistrate by the companyplaint and charge sheet in January, 1951, and the proceedings before the special judge which have been directed to be quashed by the learned judges of the high companyrt and in companysequence of s.12 , have been wrongly applied by the learned judges.
Against this order of the High Court the first respondent filed a petition, for special leave to appeal to this Court urging, inter.
The case was registered in his Court as Crime Case No.
Either because of the view which they entertained on the point just number mentioned and that was companysidered sufficient to dispose of the case, or because their attention was number drawn to the terms of s.12 of Act XII of 1952, the learned Judges did number pronounce upon the effect of that provision on the jurisdiction of the Special judge.
207 of 1959.
When the Chief Presidency Magistrate directed the issue of process against the respondents to take their trial before his Court, the first respondent filed a revision to the High Court objecting to, his jurisdiction.
After the police companypleted the investigation a charge sheet was submitted on 16 1 1951 to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, charging the three accused with offences under s.120 .B read with s.409 of the Indian Penal Code etc.
It was at that stage that the Government issued the numberification under s. 4 of the Act allotting the case to the Special judge at Alipore and directed a trial by him.
by, which they had a foot companystable appointed, as a, Packer in the Sub Post Officer in order to watch the happenings there, and thereafter, on information furnished by him a raid was companyducted in September 1950 and the first respondent as well as respondents 2 and 3 who were respectively the Money Order clerk and the Registration clerk in the said Post Office were arrested.
alia, that the companystruction by the High Court of s. 12 the Act of 1952 was erroneous but,this Court dismissed.the petition stating that it did number feel called upon to interfere at that stage and adding, The petition dismissed without prejudice to the petitioners raising this point in a proper Court at a proper time.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Immediately thereafter the charge sheets against the respondents were re filed in the Court of Special judge at Alipore, who issued summons on June 2, 1952 to the respondents to appear before him The first respondent thereupon preferred a revision petition to the High Court praying that the proceedings before the Special Judge and the summons issued by him be quashed.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR,J. This is an appeal by special leave preferred by the State of west Bengal against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta dated 9.5.1958 in Criminal Revision Case No.
1128 of 1957.
The three respondents are alleged to have companymitted the offences with which they are charged in September 1950 and though 12 years have passed by since then numberstep has been taken beyond the issue of numberices to them.
When the Magistrate was informed of this allotment, he passed an order an 16 2 1951 in these terms Under Government Notification dated 1 2 1951 this case has been allotted to the Special judge, Alipore.
Sachthey, for the appellant.
The Special judge over ruled this objection and dismissed the petition.
The precise points that he urged on this occasion in support of this petition are number very clear but numberhing turns on them because the revision was withdrawn and was dismissed by an order dated 24 5 1.954.
1128 of 1957.
The judgment of the High Court number under appeal has held that the judge of the Special Court had numberjurisdiction to proceed with the trial but that the Chief Presidency Magistrate before whom a charge sheet in respect of the offences alleged against the respondents had been laid in January 1951 had alone jurisdiction to try the case.
P. Khanna and R. IV.
November 27.
The Respondent in person.
Purporting apparently to act, on the observations of this Court in dismissing the, petition the respondents objected to the jurisdiction of the Special judge as being barred by S. 12 when the matter went back again to him and filed a formal petition raising the objection.
Thereafter, a charge sheet was presented to the Chief Presidency Magistrate which companyld only be on, the, basis that the Government accepted the position that when the ,allotment to the Special judge and his assumption of jurisdiction was quashed, by the High Court on 4 4 1952, the proceedings initiated before the Chief Presidency Magistrate by a companyplaint filed on 16 1 1951 companytinued to be pending before him.
The learned judges of the High Court accepted the petition and quashed the orders of the Special judge and held that by reason of the order of the High Court dated 4 4 1952 quashing the allotment as well as the charge sheet filed before the special judge, the proceedings were pending before the Chief Presidency Magistrate on 9.4.52.
