Premier Irrigation Equipment Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- code of civil procedure, 1908.[c.a. no. 5/1908]. section 9: [v.g. sabhahit, j] jurisdiction of civil courts suit for declaration held, entry made by the revenue authorities is always subject to the declaration that may be granted by the civil court. order1. petitioner nos. 1 to 11 are accused nos. 1 to 11 respectively and respondent no. 2 is the complainant in p.c.r. no. 1/85 on the file of the special court, bangalore. on 5-12-1985 respondent no. 2 filed complaint in the court-below against the petitioners alleging that they had committed an offence punishable under s. 7 of the essential commodities act (for short the 'act') read with clause 3 of the mild steel tubes (excluding seamless tubes and tubular according to a.p.i. specification)(quality control) order, 1978 and s. 120b i.p.c. 2. the learned special judge referred the said complaint to the superintendent of police, cbi, bangalore, for investigation and report under s. 156(3), cr.p.c., 1973 (for short the 'code'). hence this petition by the accused under s. 482 of the code for quashing the said proceedings. 3. the main ground urged by mr. devaraju, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the special court has no power under s. 156(3) of the code to refer the complaint for investigation as he is not empowered to take cognizance under s. 190 of the code, but is empowered to take cognizance under s. 12aa(1)(e) of the act (special provisions act, 1981). 4. it cannot be disputed that the criminal court can take cognizance only under ss. 190 and 193 of the code. according to s. 12aa(1)(e) of the act, the special court can take cognizance on police report of the facts constituting an offence under the act without the accused being committed to it for trial. from this it is clear that s. 193 of the code is excluded so far as the special court is concerned and the special court is empowered to take cognizance on a police report as provided in s. 190(1)(b) of the code. if that is so, the special court is empowered under s. 190 of the code and he can refer the complaint to the police for investigation under s. 156(3) of the code. according to s. 12ac of the act, save as otherwise provided in that act, the provisions of the code (including the provisions as to bail and bonds) shall apply to the proceedings before a special court and for the purpose of the said provisions, the special court shall be deemed to be a court of session and the person conducting the prosecution before the special court shall be deemed to be a public prosecutor. from this it is clear that the provisions of the code except those that are excluded by the act shall apply to the proceedings under the act by the special court. that is the view taken in jai prakash v. state of uttar pradesh, 1985 efr 90 : (1985 all lj 283). that view also finds support from the decision in a. r. antulay v. ramadas srinivas nayak, : 1984crilj647 . no doubt, in the said case, their lordship were dealing with the case under the prevention of corruption act, but, the judge trying a case under the said prevention of corruption act is also called a special judge and the provisions of the criminal law amendment act, 1952 are similar to the provisions of the essential commodities (special provisions) act, 1981. hence, i see no force in the said contention of mr. devaraju. 5. in the result, the petition is dismissed. however, the cbi is directed to complete the investigation as early as possible preferably within four months. 6. petition dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 11 are accused Nos. 1 to 11 respectively and respondent No. 2 is the complainant in P.C.R. No. 1/85 on the file of the Special Court, Bangalore. On 5-12-1985 respondent No. 2 filed complaint in the Court-below against the petitioners alleging that they had committed an offence punishable under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short the 'Act') read with Clause 3 of the Mild Steel Tubes (excluding seamless tubes and tubular according to A.P.I. Specification)(Quality Control) Order, 1978 and S. 120B I.P.C.

2. The learned Special Judge referred the said complaint to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Bangalore, for investigation and report under S. 156(3), Cr.P.C., 1973 (for short the 'Code'). Hence this petition by the accused under S. 482 of the Code for quashing the said proceedings.

3. The main ground urged by Mr. Devaraju, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that the Special Court has no power under S. 156(3) of the Code to refer the complaint for investigation as he is not empowered to take cognizance under S. 190 of the Code, but is empowered to take cognizance under S. 12AA(1)(e) of the Act (Special Provisions Act, 1981).

4. It cannot be disputed that the Criminal Court can take cognizance only under Ss. 190 and 193 of the Code. According to S. 12AA(1)(e) of the Act, the Special Court can take cognizance on police report of the facts constituting an offence under the Act without the accused being committed to it for trial. From this it is clear that S. 193 of the Code is excluded so far as the Special Court is concerned and the Special Court is empowered to take cognizance on a police report as provided in S. 190(1)(b) of the Code. If that is so, the Special Court is empowered under S. 190 of the Code and he can refer the complaint to the police for investigation under S. 156(3) of the Code. According to S. 12AC of the Act, save as otherwise provided in that Act, the provisions of the Code (including the provisions as to bail and bonds) shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Court and for the purpose of the said provisions, the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Session and the person conducting the prosecution before the Special Court shall be deemed to be a public Prosecutor. From this it is clear that the provisions of the Code except those that are excluded by the Act shall apply to the proceedings under the Act by the Special Court. That is the view taken in Jai Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1985 EFR 90 : (1985 All LJ 283). That view also finds support from the decision in A. R. Antulay v. Ramadas Srinivas Nayak, : 1984CriLJ647 . No doubt, in the said case, their Lordship were dealing with the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but, the Judge trying a case under the said Prevention of Corruption Act is also called a Special Judge and the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 are similar to the Provisions of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981. Hence, I see no force in the said contention of Mr. Devaraju.

5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, the CBI is directed to complete the investigation as early as possible preferably within four months.

6. Petition dismissed.