Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. In this regard, the first submission advanced by Ms. Kruti M. Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Special Criminal Application No. 1261 of 2005 is that the provisions of Section 219 of the Code are applicable to trials under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and it is not correct to contend that the provisions of Section 219 are applicable only to offences defined and punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Ms. Kruti M. Shah has submitted that there is no such bar, either implied or explicit, either in Section 219 of the Code or the N.I. Act and in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, the applicability of Section 219 of the Code to matters under a special enactment such as N.I. Act, cannot be negatived.

Provided that, for the purpose of this section, an offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an offence punishable under Section 380 of the said Code, and that an offence punishable under any section of the said Code, or of any special or local law, shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an attempt to commit such offence, when such an attempt is an offence.

16. A bare glance at Section 4(2) of the Code makes it more than clear that all offences under any other law have to be investigated, tried and dealt with according to the provisions of the Code unless special provisions are made for investigation, inquiry, trial etc. under any other law. The phrase 'any other law' appearing in Section 4(2) of the Code, would encompass within its sweep N.I. Act also. Even Section 219(2) of the Code, while explaining as to what is meant by offences of the same kind, states that offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same Section of the IPC or of any special or local laws. Thus, applicability of Section 219 of the Code to inquiry, investigation, trial or offences under a special law is writ large in the said Section. Unless a special law expressly or impliedly provides that the investigation, inquiry, trial etc. of offences referred to in the special law be different than the one contemplated by the Code, they will have to be investigated, inquired into and tried in the manner provided under the Code. In State of Gujarat v. Rashish Ahmed Rafik Ahmed reported in 1991 (1) GLR 548, a Division Bench of this Court has ruled that the procedure prescribed by the Code applies to trials for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 except where a contrary procedure is prescribed in the 1985 Act. Again in Mirza Iqbal Hussain v. State of U.P. the question considered was whether the Court trying an offence; under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 had the power to pass an order of confiscation by reason of the provision contained in Section 452 of the Code. The Supreme Court noticed that the Prevention of Corruption Act was totally silent on the question of confiscation and has held that the provisions of the Code would apply in their full force with the result that the Court trying an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act would have the power to pass an order of confiscation by reason of the provisions contained in Section 452 of the Code. In State of Maharashtra v. Jayantilal , the question considered was whether application of Section 5(2) of the Code was excluded by insertion of Sections 22-A and 22-B in Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952. After examining the scheme of both the statutes, the Supreme Court ruled that application of Section 5(2) of the Code was not excluded as far as investigation under the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act 1952 was concerned.