http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SUBODH KUMAR DUTTA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/01/1997

BENCH: A.S. ANAND, S.B. MAJUMDAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Special leave granted.      This appeal  by the  Central  Bureau  of  Investigation (hereinafter referred  to as  ’the  CBI’)  arises  from  the judgment of  the High  Court of  Calcutta dated  23.12.1995, allowing criminal  revision filed  by  respondent  No.1  and quashing the  proceedings of  Special Case  No. 1  of  1988, pending before the learned 2nd Special Judge at Alipore.      On the basis of an FIR, registered on 28.11.1987 by the CBI on  the complaint  of subodh Chandra De, a trap was laid by the  officers of  the CBI   on  30.11.1987 and respondent No.1 Shri  Subodh Kumar Dutta was allegedly caught accepting a bribe  of Rs.700/.  The CBI  filed a  charge sheet against respondent No.1  for an  offence under  Section 5(1)(d) read with Section  5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on  11.2.1988,   after  completion   of  the  investigation. Cognizance of  the offence  was taken by the learned special judge under  the West  Bengal Special  Courts Act,  1949  on 9.7.1988.      It is  an admitted case of the parties that the special court  which   took  cognizance  of  the  offence  had  been constituted under  the West  Bengal Special courts Act, 1949 and not  under the  criminal law  Amendment Act, 1952. After cognizance had  been taken by the learned special judge, the prevention of  corruption Act,  1947 came  to be repealed by the prevention  of corruption  act, 1988,  with effect  from 9.9.1988.  Respondent   No.1  thereupon   filed  a  criminal revision petition  in the  High Court  under Section 401/482 Cr.P.C., seeking  quashing of  the proceedings  in the  case pending against  him before  the Special  Court in which the principal ground raised was the violation of the fundamental right of  the accused  to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution  of India. During the arguments, it appears that High  Court also  permitted respondent  No.1 to raise a plea that  the Special  Court trying  the bribe  case had no jurisdiction to  take cognizance  of the  offence under  the prevention of  Corruption Act,  1947 as  that court  had not been constituted  pursuant of Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,  1988 which  had repealed  the 1947 Act. The learned single  judge appears  to have  been impressed  with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

this submission  made  on  behalf  of  respondent  No.1.  It appears that  none appeared for the State before the learned Single judge at the time of hearing of the petition.      The learned  single judge  noticed  the  provisions  of Section 26  of the  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which reads as follows:      "Special Judges appointed under Act      46 of  1952 to  be  special  Judges      appointed under this Act.      Every special Judge appointed under      the  Criminal  Law  Amendment  Act,      1952, for  any area of areas and is      holding office  on the commencement      of this act shall be deemed to be a      special   Judge   appointed   under      Section 3 of this Act for that area      or areas  and, accordingly,  on and      from such  commencement, every such      Judge shall  continue to  deal with      all  the proceedings pending before      him   on   such   commencement   in      accordance with  the provisions  of      this Act."      and opined  that the  cognizance taken  by the  Special Court on  9.7.1988 under  the 1947  Act, was  not saved. The learned Single Judge, therefore held that the cognizance had not been  taken in accordance with law and without referring to the  merits  of  the  other  contentions  raised  in  the revision  petition,   allowed  the   same  and  quashed  the proceedings pending  in the  Special Court  in Special Court case No.1 of 1988. Hence, this appeal by special leave.      Mr. Bhatt,  the learned  Additional Solicitor  General, appearing for  the appellant,  CBI concedes that the Special Court which had taken cognizance, had been constituted under the West  Bengal Act  of 1949 and not under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of  1952 but submits  that both on the date of the commission  of offence  i.e. 30.11.1987  and on the date when the  cognizance was  taken by  the Special  Court  i.e. 9.7.1988, the  1947 Act  was very  much  in  force  and  the Special Court had the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. The  1947 Act came to be repealed by the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with effect from 9.9.1988, after the cognizance had been validly taken by the Special court under the 1947  Act. Learned  Additional Solicitor General submits that under  Section 30  of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 anything done and nay action taken under the Prevention of  Corruption   Act,  1947  before  the  repeal,  has  been specifically saved. Section 30 of the 1988 Act reads thus:      "Repeal and Saving :-      (1) The  Prevention  of  Corruption      Act,  1947  (2  of  1947)  and  the      Criminal law  Amendment  Act,  1952      (46 of 1952) are hereby repealed.      (2)  Notwithstanding  such  repeal,      but  without   prejudice   to   the      application of  Section  6  of  the      General Clauses  Act, 1897  (10  of      1987), anything  done or any action      taken or  purported  to  have  been      done or taken under or in pursuance      of the  Acts so  repealed shall, in      so far  as it  is not  inconsistent      with the provisions of this Act, be      deemed to  have been  done or taken      under  or   in  pursuance   of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    corresponding  provisions  of  this      Act."      A bare  look at  the provisions  of Sub  Section -2  of Section 30  shows that  anything done or any action taken or purport to  have been  taken under  or in  pursuance of  the Prevention of  Corruption Act,  1947 shall be deemed to have been taken  under  or  in  pursuance  of  the  corresponding provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In view of this  specific provision,  the cognizance  of the offence taken by  the Special court stood saved. it appears that the attention of  the learned single judge of the high court was not invited  to section  30  (supra)  for  had  it  been  so invited, we  have no  doubt that  the proceedings which were saved by  the 1988  Act would  not have  been  quashed.  The learned single  judge has only referred to Section 26 of the 1988  Act   and  we  agree  that  under  that  Section,  the cognizance taken by the Special Court was not saved. Section 26 of  the 1988  Act has  no application  to this  case. The order of  the High  Court in view of the clear provisions of Section 30(supra)  cannot be  sustained and  we,  therefore, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court impugned before  us. Since,  the High  Court did not express any opinion  on the  other points  raised  in  the  revision petition, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the High Court  for deciding  the  criminal  revision  petition, filed by respondent No.1, afresh on merits after hearing the parties in  the light  of the observations made by us above. It shall  be open  to the respondent to raise all such pleas as are  available to  him in  law, including  the effect  of superannuation of  t  he  respondent.  The  High  Court,  we request, may dispose of the matter expeditiously. No costs.