Bhagwan Dass Khandelwal and Another vs Central Bureau of Investigation Establishment, Special Police, and Another

S.R. Singh, J.—By means of the present petition, the Petitioners have invoked the procedures of this Court u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for the relief of quashing the proceedings pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Crl. Case No. 169 of 1980 u/s 120B read with Sections 420, 471 and 467, I.P.C. A brief summation of the facts as are relevant for resolution of the controversy involved in the case on hand are that upon a written complaint dated 27.5.1972 by Sri R.M. Pradhan. Manager (Advance) Central Bank of India, Bombay addressed to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, the matter was investigated by the Dy. Superintendent of Police. Central Bureau of Investigation Special Police Establishment, E.O.: W. New Delhi, and it was unravelled that "M/s. Gangadhar Ram Chandra had withdrawn through cheques which credited to their account by the Central Bank of India, Agra, on different dates, against the forged bills as well as those bills they had never intended to be retired at the destination stations and thereby received amounts totalling to Rs. 21,60,008 by deceitful and dishonest means". The investigation thus culminated in the submission of the charge-sheet dated 24.1.1975 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, arraying applicants and five others for offences punishable u/s 120B/420/471/467, I.P.C. The charge-sheet came to be filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in view of the fact that the State Government had, vide Notification No. 1592/VII-A.N. 208 of 1974 dated 20th April, 1974, established a common Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class with its place of sitting at Lucknow for enquiry, trial and committal to the court of Session, of all such cases arising in any local area within the State of U.P. in which the investigations were made and/or charge-sheet filed by the Special Police Establishment constituted under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and by another notification No. 91/Admn. B dated 7th May, 1974, this Court in exercise of powers vested in it u/s 11(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appointed Sri Rama Kant Roy, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow as Judicial Magistrate Ist Class clothing him with power of enquiry/trial/ committal to the Court of Session, of all such cases as aforesaid for all the districts in Uttar Pradesh. Lateron, the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow to enquire, try or commit all the offences to the Court of Session was split up by constituting another court of Special Judicial Magistrate at Dehradun for specified areas and since the area in relation to which the offences in the instant case were indulged in, was apportioned to the court of Special Judicial Magistrate at Dehradun, the case stood transferred to the court at Dehradun from Lucknow. The Petitioners, it is worthy of notice, are the partners and/or otherwise associated with the withdrawal of the money as aforesaid of M/s. Gangadhar Ram Chandra.

Sri D.N. Misra, counsel appearing for the applicants canvassed the legality of both the courts of Special/Chief Judicial Magistrates at Dehradun and Lucknow, urging that the proceedings that all the proceedings that surfaced either in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, or the Special Judicial Magistrate at Dehradun were tainted with illegality besides being beyond the periphery of jurisdiction and as such, liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel propounded that the offence was allegedly indulged in within the local area of Judicial Magistrate at Agra and, therefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow or the transferee court of Special Judicial Magistrate at Dehradun had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences. The learned Counsel has reinforced his submission by placing credence upon a decision of this Court in T.S. Bajpai Vs. K.K. Ganguly and Others, , wherein it has been held that u/s 11(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a common court of Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class or of second class for all the districts of Uttar Pradesh with its place of sitting at Lucknow, to try or enquire into or commit to the Court of Session, all such cases arising in any local area within the State of Uttar Pradesh in which investigations are made or charge-sheets filed by the Special Police Establishment, New Delhi constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, could not be established by a notification of the State Government and under Section. 11(2) read with Section 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Court also could not appoint Presiding Officer of such court for more than one district in view of the fact that Section 11(1) of the Code envisages separate courts of Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class or of the second class for every district. It was held that since the offence u/s 409, I.P.C. in that case was perpetrated in the district of Etawah, the trial of the accused in that case could only take place in the court of Judicial Magistrate at Etawah u/s 177, Code of Criminal Procedure and not in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. The learned Counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak and Another, . Sri Giridhar Nath, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties repudiated the submissions made by Srt. D.N. Misra, and urged that in view of the amendment made in the Code of Criminal Procedure by Act No. 45 of 1978, the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicants are no longer tenable.

I have bestowed my anxious considerations on the submissions advanced at the bar. Section 11(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as it stood before its amendment by Act 45 of 1978, envisaged establishment of courts of Judicial Magistrates of the Ist Class and of the second class in every district, but the proviso inserted to Sub-section (1) of Section 11 by Section 3 of Act 45 of 1978, w.e.f. 18.12.1978, clearly provides that the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, establish for "any local area" one or more special courts of Judicial Magistrates of the Ist Class and of the second class to try any particular case or particular class of cases and where any such special court is established, no other court of Magistrate in the local area shall have jurisdiction to try any case or class of cases for the trial of which such special court of Judicial Magistrate has been established. Prior to insertion of the proviso to Sub-section (1) by Act 45 of 1978. Sub-section (1A) of Section 11 was inserted by Section 3 of U.P. Act No. 16 of 1976, with effect from 30.4.1978 and it provides that the State Government may likewise establish as many Courts of Judicial Magistrates of Ist class and of the second class in respect to particular cases or to a particular class of cases, or in regard to cases generally, in "any local area" and by Section 4 of the said U.P. Act, 1976, the words "in any local area" were substituted in place of words "in any district" in Section 13 of the Code. The notification by which the Court of Judicial Magistrate of Ist class having its place of sitting at Lucknow was established to enquire, try or commit to the Court of Session, the offences investigated by special Police Establishment, New Delhi, stood validated by Section 11(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1976 which reads as below:

Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court-

(a) any notification of the State Government issued before November 28, 1975 purporting to establish any court of Judicial Magistrates having jurisdiction over more than one district shall be deemed to have been issued u/s read with Section 13 of the said Code as amended by this Act and be deemed to be and always to have been void;

(b) X X X X

Section 14(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (inserted by Section 5 of Act No. 45 of 1978) with effect from 18.12.1978 visualises that local jurisdiction of a Magistrate appointed u/s 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may extend to an area beyond the district in which he ordinarily holds court. The term "local area" has not been defined in the Code but it derives its hue from the term "local jurisdiction", which in relation to Court of Magistrate connotes the local area within which the Court of Magistrate may exercise all or any of its or his powers under the Code and such local area may comprise the whole of the State or any part of the State as the State Government may. by notification, specify, as provided in Section 2(j) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The portion underlined supra, was incorporated by Section 2 of Act No. 45 of 1978 with effect from 18.12.1978. The establishment of a Court of Special Judicial Magistrate at Dehradun for the purpose aforestated is legally permissible in view of the provisions discussed above.

As a result of the foregoing discussion and in view of the amendment made in the Code of Criminal Procedure by Act No. 45 of 1978 and U.P. Act No. 16 of 1976, the decision relied upon by the counsel for the applicants pales into insignificance. Section 11(1A) inserted by U.P. Act No. 16 of 1976, clearly validates the notification issued by the State Government establishing Court of Special Judicial Magistrate at Lucknow for whole of the State and later, splitting it by creating another Court of Special Judicial Magistrate at Dehradun and the proceedings in the courts aforestated cannot be challenged by reason of lack of jurisdiction. It may also be aptly observed that illegality, if any, in the constitution of the court would not invalidate the charge-sheet and the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the applicants to the contrary cannot be countenanced.

Learned Counsel then urged that investigation, enquiry and trial ought to be done in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and not in accordance with the new Code as the offence was allegedly committed prior to enforcement of the new Code of 1973. The submission does not seem to be plausible and stands on a fragile prop. The F.I.R. in the case was lodged on 30.5.1972 and charge-sheet filed on 18.1.1975. There is nothing relied upon to show that the investigation was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the old Code of 1898 and since the charge-sheet was submitted after the enforcement of the new Code, the enquiry and trial may be held in accordance with the new Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973. Section 484 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which provides for ''repeal and saving'' is thus not Infringed.

It was also sought to be urged that the Delhi Special Police Establishment had no Jurisdiction to investigate the offence. The submission again does not commend itself for acceptance. The Delhi Special Establishment is a Central Police Force constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. 1946, to investigate such offences as may be notified u/s 3 of the Act of bribery and corruption committed by officers or others in departments of Central Government. Initially, power of investigation by the Delhi Special Establishment was confined in relation to any Union Territory but after the Amendment of the Act No. 46 of 1952, the Central Government has been empowered to extend to any area, (including Railway areas in a State not being Union Territory), the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the investigation of any offences or class of offences specified in notification u/s 3 of the Act. It is true that according to Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973, the offences under the Indian Penal Code are to be investigated according to the provisions of the Code which implies investigation by the Police established under the Police Act, 1861, but Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, clearly provides that nothing In the Code shall in absence of specific provisions to the contrary affect any special or local laws for the time being in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred or any special form of procedure prescribed by any other law for the time being in force. The Delhi Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. thus gets powers to investigate notified offences by virtue of Section 2 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Police Act, 1861. Procedure for investigation is of course the same as contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Section 5 of the old Code is a provision corresponding to Section 4 of the present Code. In the circumstances of the case, therefore, no exception can be taken to the investigation of the offences by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.

In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. The interim order shall stand discharged.