STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. BEJOY KUMAR BOSE ETC. ETC.
Citation: [1978] 2 S.C.R. 382; 1977 INSC 234
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI, V.D. TULZAPURKAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
1977 INSC 234. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1977-12-07. STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. BEJOY KUMAR BOSE ETC. ETC. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978] 2 S. C. R. STAIB OF WEST BENGAL v. BEJOY KUMAR BOSE ETC. ETC. December ? , 1977 [P. K. GOSWA. VII AND V. D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ. J • West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, Sections 4(1) and 5--Scopc of-Cogn~1zance of the offences mentioned in the Act by Special Judge-Whether it is obligatory for the Special Judge to examine the conr-plainilnl ul s. 200 of Crimitwl Procedure Code, prior to issuing process. A criminal case arising out of a complaint made against the accused Including the respondents who happened to be public servants at the material time, for the alleged offences u/s. 120-B/379/466/468/471 I. P. C. was allotted by the State Government through a notification No. 3165-J dt. 8-4-70 to the Third Additional Special Court, Calcutta constituted under the provisions of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act.
Following the notification, the appellant State through Ranjit Roy, Sub Inspector of Police filed complaint before the Special Court on 11-9-70 detailing all the allegations against the accused and including the material facts -that transpired in the course of the investigation of the case. The Special Court Judge after perusal of the-. complaint and bearing the Public Prosecutor, took cognizance Of the caSe u/s. 409 /109 aud 409/34 I. P. C. which are offences mentioned in the Schedule of the Act, and issued processes to the· accused. In the trial after examining 70 · witnesses, the prosecution closed its case on May 2, 1974. The court framed: charges against four accused including the respondents and discharged the remaining two accused by its order dated 26-2-1975. Charges were framed under various sections including SS. 409 and 420 read with l'I, 120-B I. P. C. The revision petitions moved by the respondents for quashing the trial on March. 25, 1.
975, were accepted by the Calcutta High Ciurt following its earlier deci-· sions dated 29-3-1967 and 11-4-1975. The High Court held that no legal aud valid cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Judge, Special COurt and, therefore, the entire proceedings became vitiated. Allowing the appeal by certificate, the Court, HELD : (1) It is not obligatory for the Special Judge to examine complainant under s. 200 Cr. P. C. Under s. 4(2) of the West Bengal Criminal1 Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, the allotment by the State Government to the Special Judge of a case involving of scheduled offences vests the neces~ sary jurisdiction in the Special Judge to proceed to trial and is, therefore, equivalent to that courts' taking cognizance of the offence. [385 G, 386 A·B] Ajit Kumar Pa/it v. State of West Bengal [1963] Supp. (1) SCR 953 @ 965-966, followed. (2) Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code in terms, comes into play after taking cognizance of an offence by a Magistrate.
[386 D] GopGl Das Sindhi & Ors. v. State of Assa1n & Anr. AIR 1961 SC 986, 988 and 989, referred to. (3) There is nothing in s. 5 ( 1 ) of the Act even after the amendment in 1960 to compel the Special Judge to comply with the provisions of s-. 200 Cr. P. C. The words "in the manner laid down in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-s. (! ) of s. 190 of the Criminal Procedure. Code 1898" do not automatically introduce the provisions of s. 200 Cr. P. C. of Chapter XVI, nor do the above words in •· 5 (2) of the Act, mandatorily compel the Special Judge to resort" to the provisions of Chapter XVI. The legislature ~ the above amendment has advisedly omitted to include s. 200 Cr. P. C. and the other provisions in Chapter XVI of the Criminal Procedure Code. [385 H, 386 A, E, F] (4) Because of ·the amendment of s. 5(2) 'in 1960, it may now be open· to th~ Special Judge to apply his judicial mind to the complaint apart from) 'STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. B. K. BOSE (Goswami,!. ) 383 . allotment of .
the s;:ase in order to come to a decision as to whether he is satis~ fied on the materials laid before him at that stage to take cognizance of the -o~ence ,and proceed to . trial. If he chooses to examine the complainant or any witness before issuing process against any accused, there is nothing in Jaw to prevent him from doing so. If he does not do so and is satisfied on perusal -0~ the complaint after allotment of the case by the Government that an offence has b. een disclosed against definite persons, no valid objection could be taken against his taking cognizance on the written complaint without complying with the provisions of s. 200 Criminal Procedure Code. No grievance can be made then that the Special Judge has not examined the complainant under section 200, Cr. P. C. period to issuing of process. [386 B·D] Sudhir Chandra Bhattachariee v. The State Cr/. Appeals Nos. 23-26 o( 1961 (decided on 29th March 1967, Calcutta) and Shyama Saran Das Gupta v. The State (decided on !
Ith April 1975, Calcutta) over-ruled. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos, 109- (l 111of1977. From the Judgment and Order dated 28-5··1975 of the Calcutta High ·Court in Criminal Revision Nos. 304, 371 and 318/75 respectively. A. P. Chatterjee, G. C. Chatterjee and Mrs. Mukti Moitra for the . , Appellants in all the appeals. A. K. Sen, Miss Uma Bannerjee and S, Swarup for Respondent in Cr!. A No. 611 of 1977, The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GosWAMI, J. CThese appeals by certificate are from the common • judgment of the alcutta High Court of 28th May, 1975 disposing of three Criminal Misc. Revisions Nos. 304, 318 and 371 of 1975. There is a common quemon of law and will be disposed of by this judgment. Briefly the facts are as follows : A complaint was made against the accused by Shri J. F. C. Mc. Mohan, Dock Manager, Calcntta Port Commissioners, to the South Port Police Station alleging offences under Sections 120-B/420/379/ 466/468/471. IP. C.
against several accused including the respondents who happened to be public: servants at the material time, The State Government issued a Notification No. 3165-. J on 8-4-1970 under Section 4 of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) allotting the said case for trial to the Third. Additional Special Court, Calcutta constituted under the provisions of the said Act for trial of the offences mentioned in the· schedule to that Act. There is no dispute about the particular order of allotment of the case to the Special Court under the said Act. Folio. wing the Notification of April 8, 1970 the State of West Bengal through Ranajit Roy, Snb-Jnspector of Police, filed a complaint before the Third Additional Special Court, CalcuttaJ on 11-9-1970 detailing all '-.... ,, .. the allegations against the accused and indicating the material facts that transpired in the course of thei invostigation of the case.
The Special Court Ju provisions of Section 200, Cr. P . C. I ' r The objection of the rei:pondents to the trial i• on the •core of the invalidity of the cognizance taken by the Special Judge on perusal of the written complaint after allotment of the case by the Government for the sole reason that the complainant had not bee! 1i examined under Section 200, Cr. P. C. prior to issuing of process. The objection is dearly untenable for the reasons given above. The appeals are, therefore, allowed and th6 judgment of the Hirh Coort is set aside. Since the case is an old one, trial before the Special Judge shall be expedited: i. R. Jf. pp~lils arlowed. (1) A. I. R. 1961 S. C. , 986, ~88 & 989.
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.