Judgment:
K.A. Swami Ag. C.J.
1. This Writ Petition is preferred against the order dated 14.1.1992 passed in W.P.No. 19540 of 1985. The appellants are the petitioners in the Writ Petition.
2. In the Writ Petition, the petitioners sought for issue of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ to quash the Notification No. 682, dated 2-9-1982 (Ann.A) and also the Notification No. 696 dated 10- 9-1982 (Ann.B) issued by the State of Karnataka. The petitioners also further prayed for issue of a Writ in the nature of prohibition directing the Presiding Officer, Special Court (Economic Offences), Bangalore, from proceeding further in C.C,No. 72/85.
3. The learned single Judge has rejected the Writ Petition on the ground that the offences punishable under the various Central Enactments mentioned in the Notification dated 10.9.1982 are triable by the Court established under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, merely because the Court is called a Special Court it is not possible to hold that an enactment of Parliament is necessary to create such a Court; whereas, in substance, it is only re-assigning or re-allocation of the work to the Special Court.
4. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the offences are created under Entry 95 of List-I under the Central enactments; therefore, the Parliament alone is competent to confer jurisdiction on the Special Court because the offence is created by the Parliament under the Central Enactments; that the State Government is not competent to create a Special Court. It is further submitted that the learned single Judge has not considered this contention even though it was specifically raised and urged in the Writ Petition.
5. It is true that the learned single Judge has not referred to the contention based on Entry 95 of List-I of Seventh Schedule raised and urged by the learned Counsel. However, we are of the view that non-consideration of that contention cannot be held to have affected the ultimate Decision arrived at by the learned single Judge. Under the Proviso to Section 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is open to the State Government after consultation with the High Court to establish for any local area one or more Special Courts of Judicial Magistrate of I Class or II Class to try any particular case or particular classes of cases and where any such Special Court is established, no other Court or Magistrate in the local area shall have jurisdiction to try any case or classes of cases for the trial of which such Special Court of Judicial Magistrate has been established. The impugned Notification dated 10th September 1982 specifically states that the Special Court is created in exercise of the power conferred by the Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11 read with Clause (j) of Section 2 and Section 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not the case of the appellants that the StateGovernment has established a Special Court without consulting the High Court. The Special Court is created only in respect of the offences arising in the Bangalore Metropolitan area and the Revenue District of Bangalore for the trial of offences arising under the Acts specified in the Schedule to the Notification. Thus, the offences arising under the Enactments mentioned at Nos. 1 to 12 in the Schedule to the impugned Notification, within the Bangalore Revenue District and the Bangalore Metropolitan area are to be tried by the Special Court as per the Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Once such a Special Court is created, all other Courts will cease to have jurisdiction to try an offence arising under the Enactments specified in the Notification referred to above within the area as specified therein. It is not disputed before us and it cannot also be disputed that the offences arising under the enactments mentioned in the Schedule to the impugned Notification are to be tried by the Courts established under the Code of Criminal Procedure, If that be so, it is open to the State Government to exercise power conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to create a Special Court as the proviso specifically empowers the State Government to establish a Special Court. It may also be pointed out that the creation of the Special Court under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is in the interest of the accused as well as the prosecuting agency, because there will be one Court exclusively dealing with these offences and consequently there will be speedy disposal of the cases. It will also be convenient for the prosecuting agency. Hence, we are of the view that the impugned Notification does not suffer from any infirmity. In this view of the matter, the contention based on Entry 95 of List I of Seventh Schedule does not have any relevancy nor it will have any effect on the conclusion reached by us,
6. Lastly, it is urged before us that the Special Court has taken cognizance of the offences which arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Special Court. Therefore, the decision of the Special Court to take cognizance of the offence is opposed to Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All that we can say is that this contention need not be considered by this Court because it is open to the appellants to urge the same before the Court which is seized of the matter.