http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: STATE OF WEST BENGAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BEJOY KUMAR BOSE ETC.  ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/12/1977

BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. TULZAPURKAR, V.D.

CITATION:  1978 AIR  188            1978 SCR  (2) 382  1978 SCC  (1) 173

ACT: West  Bengal  Criminal Law Amendment (Special  Courts)  Act, Sections  4(1)  and 5--Scope of-Cognizance of  the  offences mentioned  in  the  Act  by  Special  Judge--Whether  it  is obligatory for the Special Judge to examine the  complainant u/s.  200  of  Criminal Procedure  Code,  prior  to  issuing process.

HEADNOTE: A criminal case arising out of a complaint made against  the accused including the respondents who happened to be  public servants at the material time, for the alleged offences u/s. 120-B/379/466/468/471  I.P.C.  was  allotted  by  the  State Government  through a notification &o. 3165-J dt. 8-4-70  to the  Third  Additional Special Court,  Calcutta  constituted under  the  provisions  of  the  West  Bengal  Criminal  Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act.  Following the notification, the  appellant  State through Ranjit Roy, Sub  Inspector  of Police filed a complaint before the Special Court on 11-9-70 detailing  all  the  allegations  against  the  accused  and including  the material facts that transpired in the  course of  the investigation of the case.  The Special Court  Judge after  perusal  of  the complaint  and  hearing  the  Public Prosecutor,  took  cognizance of the case u/s.  409/109  and 409/34  I.P.C. which are offences mentioned in the  Schedule of  the  Act, and issued processes to the accused.   In  the trial  after examining 70 witnesses, the prosecution  closed its  case on May 2, 1974.  The court framed charges  against four  accused including the respondents and  discharged  the remaining two accused by its order dated 26-2-1975.  Charges were framed under various sections including SS. 409 and 420 read  with s. 120-B I.P.C. The revision petitions  moved  by the  respondents for quashing the trial on March  25,  1975, were  accepted  by  the Calcutta High  Court  following  its earlier  decisions dated 29-3-1967 and 11-4-1975.  The  High Court held that no legal and valid cognizance of the offence was   taken  by  the  learned  Judge,  Special  Court   and, therefore. the entire proceedings became vitiated. Allowing the appeal by certificate the Court. HELD  :  (1) It is not obligatory for the Special  Judge  to examine complainant under s. 200 Cr.  P. C. Under s. 4(2) of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

the  allotment by the State Government to the Special  Judge of  a case involving of scheduled offences vests the  neces- sary  jurisdiction in the Special Judge to proceed to  trial and  is,  therefore,  equivalent  to  that  courts’   taking cognizance of the offence. [385 G, 386 A-B] Ajit  Kumar Palit v. State of West Bengal [1963]  Supp.  (1) SCR 953 @ 965-966, followed. (2)Section  200 of the Criminal Procedure Code  in  terms, comes  into play after taking cognizance of an offence by  a Magistrate. [386 D] Gopal  Das Sindhi & Ors. v. State of Assam & Anr.  AIR  1961 SC 986, 988 and 989, referred to. (3)There  is nothing in s. 5(1) of the Act even after  the amendment in 1960 to compel the Special Judge to comply with the provisions of s. 200 Cr. P. C. The words "in the  manner laid down in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-s. (1) of s. 190  of the  Criminal  Procedure  Code 1898"  do  not  automatically introduce  the  provisions of s. 200 Cr.  P. C.  of  Chapter XVI,  nor  do  the  above  words in  s.  5(2)  of  the  Act, mandatorily  compel  the  Special Judge  to  resort  to  the provisions  of  Chapter XVI.  The legislature in  the  above amendment has advisedly omitted to include s. 200 Cr.  P. C. and  the  other provisions in Chapter XVI  of  the  Criminal Procedure Code. [385 H, 386 A, E, F] (4)Because of the amendment of s. 5(2) in 1960, it may now be  open to the Special Judge to apply his judicial mind  to the complaint apart from 383 allotment  of the case in order to come to a decision as  to whether he is satisfied on the materials laid before him  at that stage to take cognizance of the offence and proceed  to trial.   If  he chooses to examine the  complainant  or  any witness before issuing process against any accused, there is nothing in law to prevent him from doing so.  If he does not do  so  and is satisfied on perusal of the  complaint  after allotment of the case by the Government that an offence  has been disclosed against definite persons, no valid  objection could be taken against his taking cognizance on the  written complaint  without complying with the provisions of  s.  200 Criminal Procedure Code.  No grievance can be made then that the  Special  Judge has not examined the  complainant  under section  200, Cr.  P. C. period to issuing of process.  [386 B-D] Sudhir Chandra Bhattacharjee v. The State Crl.  Appeals Nos. 23-26  of  1961 (decided on 29th March 1967,  Calcutta)  and Shyama  Saran Das Gupta v. The State (decided on 11th  April 1975, Calcutta) over-ruled.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1091 1 1 of 1977. From the Judgment and Order dated 28-5-1975 of the  Calcutta High  Court  in Criminal Revision Nos. 304, 371  and  318/75 respectively. A.P.  Chatterjee, G. C. Chatterjee and Mrs. Mukti  Moitra for the Appellants in all the appeals. A.K. Sen, Miss Uma Bannerjee and S. Swarup for Respondent in Crl.  A. No. 6 1 1 of 1 9 7 7. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J. These appeals by certificate are from the common judgment  of  the  Calcutta High Court  of  28th  May,  1975 disposing  of three Criminal Misc.  Revisions Nos. 304,  318 and 371 of 1975.  There is a common question of law and will

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

be disposed of by this judgment. Briefly the facts are as follows A  complaint was made against the accused by Shri J.  F.  C. Mc.   Mohan, Dock Manager, Calcutta Port  Commissioners,  to the,  South  Port  Police Station  alleging  offences  under Sections 120-B/420/379/ 466/468/471.  I.P.C. against several accused including the respondents who happened to, be public servants at the material time.  The State Government  issued a Notification No. 3165-J on 8-4-1970 under Section 4 of the West  Bengal  Criminal Law Amendment  (Special  Courts)  Act (hereinafter  referred  to as, the Act) allotting  the  said case  for  trial  to the  Third  Additional  Special  Court, Calcutta  constituted under the provisions of the  said  Act for trial of the offences mentioned in the schedule to  that Act.   There  is no dispute about the  particular  order  of allotment  of the case to the, Special Court under the  said Act.  Following the Notification of April 8, 1970 the  State of West Bengal through Ranajit Roy, Sub-Inspector of Police, filed a complaint before the Third Additional Special Court, Calcutta on 11-9-1970 detailing all the allegations  against the   accused  and  indicating  the  material   facts   that transpired  in the course of the investigation of the  case. The Special Court, Judge after perusal of the complaint  and hearing  the Public Prosecutor took cognizance of  the  case under Sections 409/109 and 409/34, I.P.C. which are offences mentioned in the schedule of the 384 Act.   The learned Judge thereupon issued processes  against the  respondent  and  other accused.  In  due  course  trial commenced.,  The, prosecution after examining  70  witnesses closed  its case on May 2, 1974.  The Court  framed  charges against four accused including the respondent and discharged the  remaining two accused by a lengthy order with.  reasons on  26-2-1975.  Charges were framed under  various  sections including Sections 409 & 420 read with 120-B, I.P.C. The respondent moved the Calcutta High Court in revision for quashing  the  trial  on March 25,  1975.   The  High  Court allowed  the  Petition  on 28th of  May,  1975  and  granted certificate to appeal to this Court under Article 134(1) (c) of the Constitution on March 26, 1976.  Hence these appeals. The  High  Court accepted the contention of  the  respondent that no legal and valid cognizance of the offence war, taken by  the learned Judge,.  Special Court and,  therefore,  the entire  proceedings became vitiated and hence were  quashed. The,  High  Court  in disposing of the matter  in  this  way followed  two earlier Division Bench decisions of  the  said Court  in  Sudhir  Chandra  Bhattacharjee  vs.   The  State, Criminal  Appeals  Nos.  23 to 26 of 1961  decided  on  29th March,  1967  and  Shyama Saran Das Gupta  vs.   The  State, decided on 11th April, 1975. The  question  that  falls for decision  in  these  appeals, relates  to  the cognizance of the offence& by  the  Special Judge  under  the  Act.   As the  preamble  shows,  the  Act provides  for  the  more speedy  trial  and  more  effective punishment  of  certain offence& specified in  the  schedule thereto.    Section   4(1)   of  the   Act   provides   that notwithstanding  anything contained in the Code of  Criminal Procedure  1898 or in any other law, the offences  specified in  the schedule shall be triable by Special Courts  only  : Provided that when trying any case a Special Court may  also try  any  offence other than an offence,  specified  in  the schedule,  with  which  the accused may under  the  Code  of Criminal  Procedure, 1898, be charged with the  same  trial. There is, however, no dispute that the offences charged  are exclusively triable by the Special Court.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

Section  5 of the Act which is material for our purpose  may be read               "A  Special  Court  may  take  cognizance   of               offence in the manner laid down in clauses (a)               & (b) of subsection (1) of Section 190 of Code               of   Criminal  Procedure,  1899  without   the               accused  being  committed  to  his  Court  for               trial,  and  its trying the  accused  persons,               shall  follow the procedure proscribed by  the               Code  of  Criminal Procedure,  1898,  for  the               trial   of  warrant  cases   by   Magistrates,               instituted otherwise than on a police report." This  Section  underwent some changes by two  amendments  in 1956 and’ 1960.  Prior to theamendments,  Section 5(1)  did not contain the words "in the mannerlaid down in clauses (a)   &   (b)   of   subsection   (1)   of   the   Code   of Procedure, 1898" and the words "instituted otherwise than on a  police  report." We are not concerned  in  these  appeals with,  the amendment of 1956 by which the words  "instituted otherwise man an a police report were inserted. 385 It  may  be  of interest to note that in a  case  under  the unamended Section before the Special Court this Court had to deal with the question of cognizance canvassed before it  in Ajit  Kumar Palit vs.  State of West Bengal(1).  This  Court held on the terms of the provisions of the unamended section 5(1) of the Act as follows :-               "The  word  "cognizance" has  no  esoteric  or               mystic   significance  in  criminal   law   or               procedure.   It merely means--become aware  of               and  when  used with reference to a  Court  or               Judge,  to take notice of judicially.  It  was               stated  in Gopal Marwari v. Emperor(2) by  the               learned  Judges of the Patna High Court  in  a               passage quoted with approval by this Court  in               R. R. Chari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (s) that               the word, ’cognizance’ was used in the Code to               indicate  the  point when  the  Magistrate  or               Judge.  takes judicial notice of  an  offence,               and  that it was a word of indefinite  import,               and is not perhaps always used in exactly  the               same   sense.   As  observed  in  Emperor   v.               Sourindra  Mohan  Chuckerbutty  (  4)  "taking               cognizance does not involve any formal action;               or  indeed action of any kind, but  occurs  as               soon  as a Magistrate, as such,  applies  his,               mind   to  the  suspected  commission  of   an               offence..........  It appears to us  therefore               that  as soon as a special judge receives  the               orders of allotment of the case passed by the,               State   Government  it  becomes  vested   with               jurisdiction  to  try  the case  and  when  it               receives the record from the Government it can               apply its mind and issue notice to the accused               and  thus start the trial of  the  proceedings               assigned to it by the State Government." The  above decision of this Court could have  concluded  the matter, but it is pointed out by Mr. A. K. Sen, appearing on behalf  of the respondent that in view of the  amendment  of Section 5(1) of the Act by the West Bengal Act XXIV of  1960 introducing  the words "in, the manner laid down in  clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of Section 190 of the Code  of Criminal Procedure, 1898", the legal position has completely changed.   He  submits  that it is now  obligatory  for  the Special Judge to examine the complainant under Section  200,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

Cr.P.C. prior to taking cognizance of the offence.  Since in the  present  case, proceeds the argument of  Mr.  Sen,  the Special Judge took cognizance merely on the complaint of the Sub-Inspector  of Police, without proceeding- in  accordance with  Section  200,  Cr.P.C.,  the  entire  proceedings  are vitiated. We are unable to accede to the above submission of Mr.  Sen. It  is true that the amendment has introduced the manner  of taking  cognizance in accordance with Section 190(1)  (a)  & (b),  Cr.   P.C.  appearing in Chapter XV  of  the  Criminal Procedure   Code,  1  898,  but  the  legislature  in   this amendment.  at  the  same time,  has  advisedly  omitted  to include (1)  [1963] Supp. (1) S.C.R., 953 at 965-966. (2)  A.I.R. 1943 Pat. 245. (3)  [1951] S.C.R. 312, 320. (4)  [1910] I.L.R. 37 Cal. 412, 416. 386 Section  200, Cr.P.C. and the other provisions of  the  next Chapter  which  is Chapter XVI dealing with  "complaints  to Magistrates". It  is  clear  that under Section 4(2)  of  the,  Act,  the, allotment by, the State Government to the Special Judge of a case  involving  of scheduled offences vests  the  necessary jurisdiction  ill the Special Judge to proceed to trial  and is, therefore, equivalent to that Court’s taking  cognizance of  the  offence  (See  Ajit  Kumar  Palit’s  case  (Supra). Because of the amendment of Section 5 (2) in 1960, it may be now open to the Special Judge to apply his judicial mind  to the  complaint apart from allotment of the case in order  to come  to  a decision as to whether he is  satisfied  on  the materials  laid before him at that stage to take  cognizance of  the  offence  and proceed to trial:  If  he  chooses  to examine  the  complainant or any  witnesses  before  issuing process  against  any accused, there is nothing  in  law  to prevent  him  from  doing so.  If he doe not do  so  and  is satisfied on perusal of the complaint after allotment of the case  by the Government that an offence has  been  disclosed against definite persons, no valid objection could be  taken against  his  taking  cognizance on  the  written  complaint without complying with the provision of Section  200,Cr.P.C. No,  grievance can be made then that the Special  Judge  has not  examined  the complainant under  Section  200,  Cr.P.C. prior to issuing of process. Section 200, Cr.P.C., in terms, comes into play after taking cognizance  of  an offence by a Magistrate  (See  Gopal  Das Sindhi  and others v. State of Assam and another(1).   There is,  therefore,  no  merit in  the  submission  that  taking cognizance, of the offence in this case is invalid for which the whole trial is vitiated. The words "in the manner laid down in clauses (a) and (b) of Subsection  (1)  of Section 190 of  the  Criminal  Procedure Code, 1898" do not automatically introduce the provisions of Section 200, Cr.P.C. of Chapter XVI, nor do the above  words in  Section 5 (2) of the Act mandatorily compel the  Special Judge to resort to the provisions of Chapter XVI. Apart from this, Chapter XVI in terms refers to  "complaints to Magistrates" and thereby excludes Special Judges who  are to, be guided, by the special provisions of the, special Act in  the  matters  provided therein.  There,  is  nothing  in Section 5(1) of the Act even after the amendment in 1960  to compel  the Special Judge to comply with the  provisions  of Section 200, Cr.P.C. -The  objection  of the respondents to the trial is  on  the score  of  the  invalidity of the cognizance  taken  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

Special  Judge  on perusal of the  written  complaint  after allotment of the case by the Government for the sole  reason that  the  complainant had not been examined  under  Section 200, Cr.P.C. prior to issuing of process.  The objection  is clearly untenable for the reasons given above. The  appeals are therefore allowed and the judgment  of  the High  Court  is set aside.  Since the case is  an  old  one, trial before the Special Judge shall be expedited. S.R. (1)  A.I.R. 1961 S.C., 986,988 & 989. Appeals allowed. 387