Court of its own motion vs State of Punjab

M.M. Punchhi, J.—This matter has been placed before me in the following circumstances :

Shri Hardial Singh. Additional Judge. Designated Court, Amritsar. on 5-12-1988 passed an interim order in case State v. Karaj Singh, FIR No. 247 dated 5-11-1987. Police Station Jhabal, under Sections 307 of the I.P.C., 25 of the Arms Act and 3/4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereafter referred to as ''the Act''). The learned Additional Judge took the tentative view that he had no jurisdiction to try the case and the jurisdiction vested in the Court of Shri Nirmal Singh, Additional Judge, Designated Court. Amritsar, on the basis of a notification issued by the Central Government on 19th of October, 1988, which reads as under :

"No. 34/14/87-C-(II)38092--In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (5) of Section 9 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (Central Act No. 28 of 1987) the President of India with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of High Court of Punjab and Haryana is pleased to appoint Sh. Nirmal Singh, Additional District and Sessions Judge. Amritsar to be the Additional Judge to exercise jurisdiction in the Designaged Courts of Kapurthala. Gurdaspur, Ferozepur and Hoshiarpur at Amritsar for the trial of persons apprehended during Operation Black Thunder''.

The learned Additional Judge came to such a conclusion on the ground that the Court of Mr. Nirmal Singh, Additional Judge. Amritsar, was alone competent to try all cases in which the accused had been arrested during the ''Operation Black Thunder'' irrespective of the fact whether they had committed offences allegedly before or during the Operation Black Thunder. It appears that he had also, taken a similar view in another case relating to one Sukhdev Singh. He thus referred the matter to the Judge. Designated Court. Gurdaspur, requesting that the file of the instant case be transferred to the Court of Mr. Nirmal Singh, Additional Judge. Designated Court. Amritsar. Suggestion was also made that in case the learned Judge. Designated Court, Gurdaspur. did not agree with the reference, then the matter may be referred to the High Court for clarification.

The Judge, Designated Court, Gurdaspur, vide order dated 3-1-1989 disagreed with the reference and sent the file back to Shri Hardial Singh, Additional Judge. Designated Court, Amritsar, for disposal of the case in accordance with law. He did not even feel the necessity for seeking clarification from the High Court, as suggested by Shri Hardial Singh. Rather Shri Hardial Singh was advised not to send such like files in similar cases pending before him in future.

It appears that this matter was brought to the notice of S.S. Sodhi, J.. the vigilance Judge of district Amritsar and he suo motu took the matter on the judicial side issuing notice to the Advocate General Punjab. It is in this way that the matter has been placed before me.

Designated Courts are constituted by the Central Government or the State Government in accordance with Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 9 says however : --

"Where any question arises as to the jurisdiction of any Designated Court, it shall be referred to the Central Government whose decision thereon shall be final."

It appears that a doubt was entertained by S.S. Sodhi. J. on the suggested poor wording of the notification dated 19th October, 1988, attaching plausibility to the views expressed by Shri Hardial Singh. Additional Judge. Seemingly he was not inclined to endorse the view of Shri M.S. Luna, Judge. Designated Court. Gurdaspur. unless a revised notification was issued by the State Government covering its intention. (An unsigned note in which such view is expressed exists at pages 5 and 6 of the file and as revealed from the Registry these papers were received in the branch as part of the file from the, Court of the Hon''ble judge)

It is futile, to go into the question whether this Court has inherent jurisdiction u/s 482. Cr. P.C. to advice on a matter like this and correct the suggested error of domain jurisdiction. The fact remains that the Act has conferred the power to determine all questions arising as to the jurisdiction of any Designated Court or the Central Government whose decision thereon shall be final. The jurisdiction of this Court automatically in the given situation is ousted for it cannot determine, any question arising as to the jurisdiction of any Designated Court. And additionally, the question, is not of inherent jurisdiction of a Designated Court to try the case but is rather by which of the two Designated Courts should the case be tried. The jurisdiction to try the case is with one or the other and not that neither of them has jurisdiction to try the matter.

In this siuation and for the reasons recorded above, the matter is dropped. Dismissed.