Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The contention of the petitioners before the learned Single Judge of this Court appears to have been that a Special Court constituted under the provisions of Section 12-A of the Essential Commodities Act cannot try the cases involving offences under Indian Penal Code along with offences under the Essential Commodities Act. After noting down various judgments the learned single Judge framed the following question :

"Whether a special Court constituted under the provisions of Section 12-A of the Essential Commodities Act can try other offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code along with tine provisions of the Essential Commodities Act?"

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned Public Prosecutor. In order to appreciate the arguments made, it will be necessary to have a glimpse of various provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and also the Criminal Procedure Code.

4. Under Section 12-A of the Essential Commodities Act, the State Government is authorised to constitute the Special Courts for the purpose of speedy trial of the offences under the Essential Commodities Act. The qualifications prescribed for the person who could be appointed a Judge of the Special Court include a qualification that he should have been a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge for not less than one year.

8. Therefore in view of this settled position of law, the only thing that has to be seen is whether the Special Court created under the Essential Commodities Act can exercise the powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure or he can exercise his powers under both.

9. The judgments that have been cited at the bar include Jagdish Prasad Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 SCC (Cri) 924. Before coming to this judgment, it will be pertinent to note that according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the Special Court was a Sessions Court and therefore that Special Judge has all the powers of a Sessions Judge. But the learned counsel for petitioners submits that even if it is conceded, though not admitted, that the Special Court was a Sessions Court, then that Special Judge has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence directly except after committal. In the case referred to above, the appellant before the Supreme Court had been charge-sheeted for an offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act. The High Court of Rajasthan transferred his case pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate for C.B.I. Cases at Jaipur to Special Court constituted under the Essential Commodities Act. The argument made before the Supreme Court was that an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code could not be tried summarily and the Special Court constituted under Section 12-A of the Essential Commodities Act could only try offences under the Essential Commodities Act summarily. The Supreme Court referred to Sub-section (2) of Section 12-AA of the Essential Commodities Act and noted the argument that in view of this provisions, a joint trial of an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act could not be conducted. Unfortunately this submission was not decided by the Supreme Court because it allowed the appeal on another ground and held.

11, Now the offences with which the petitioners have been charged in addition to the offences under the Essential Commodities Act are not triable by the Sessions Court, but are triable by the Magistrate. Therefore, this judgment of Supreme Court would not be of any benefit to the petitioners. But the learned counsel for petitioners submits that in terms of Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrates can try the offences in a summary way if the offences are not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years and almost all the offences with which the petitioners have been charged carry a sentence of more than two years. Section 407 of I.P.C. also carries an imprisonment for seven years and fine. Section 420 of I.P.C. also carries an imprisonment for seven years and fine, Section 467 of I.P.C. carries a punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment for ten years and fine, Section 468 of I.P.C. also carries imprisonment for seven years. Section 471 of I.P.C. is not relevant because it carries the punishment for forgery of such a document. Sections 472 and 474 of I.P.C. also carry the sentence of imprisonment above two years. Therefore, all the offences with which the petitioners were charged carry sentence of imprisonment of more than two years. Therefore, the contention is that these offences cannot be tried summarily and under Section 12-AA(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, the Special Court has to try the offences summarily and there is a restriction also that he cannot give a sentence of more than two years which is prescribed under proviso to Section 12-AA(f) of the Essential Commodities Act. It lays down, "Provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the Special Court to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."