Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 23.12.1995, which had allowed a criminal revision filed by the respondent and quashed proceedings in Special Case No.1 of 1988 pending before the 2nd Special Judge at Alipore. The litigation concerned a trap operation conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the respondent, a public servant, who was allegedly caught accepting a bribe of Rs.700 on 30.11.1987. The CBI registered an FIR on 28.11.1987 based on the complaint of Subodh Chandra De. After investigation, the CBI filed a charge sheet on 11.2.1988 under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Special Court constituted under the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949 took cognizance of the offence on 9.7.1988. It was an admitted fact that the Special Court was not constituted under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. On 9.9.1988, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was repealed by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent then filed a criminal revision under Sections 401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing, primarily on the ground of violation of the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The High Court permitted the respondent to raise an additional plea that the Special Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance because it was not constituted under Section 3 of the 1988 Act. The High Court accepted the jurisdictional argument, relying on Section 26 of the 1988 Act, and quashed the proceedings without considering other contentions. The CBI appealed by special leave. The Additional Solicitor General conceded that the Special Court was constituted under the West Bengal Act of 1949, but argued that on both the date of offence (30.11.1987) and the date of cognizance (9.7.1988), the 1947 Act was in force and the Special Court had jurisdiction. He submitted that Section 30 of the 1988 Act specifically saved anything done or any action taken under the 1947 Act before repeal. The Supreme Court examined Section 30(2) of the 1988 Act and held that it clearly provided that anything done or any action taken under the repealed Acts would be deemed to have been done under corresponding provisions of the 1988 Act, insofar as not inconsistent. The Court observed that the High Court's attention was not invited to Section 30 and that Section 26 had no application because it only concerned Special Judges appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. Consequently, the cognizance taken by the Special Court stood saved. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and remanded the criminal revision petition to the High Court for fresh decision on merits after hearing the parties. The respondent was given liberty to raise all pleas available in law, including the effect of superannuation. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Repeal and Saving - Section 30(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The Special Court took cognizance on 9.7.1988 under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which was later repealed with effect from 9.9.1988. The High Court quashed proceedings by relying on Section 26 of the 1988 Act, but the Supreme Court held that Section 30(2) expressly saves anything done or any action taken under the repealed 1947 Act and deems it done under corresponding provisions of the 1988 Act. Held that the cognizance stood saved despite the repeal (Paras 1-3). B) Criminal Law - Special Courts - Jurisdiction - Section 26 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 26 applies only to Special Judges appointed under Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, deeming them Special Judges under Section 3 of the 1988 Act. The Special Court in this case was constituted under West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949, not under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952; hence Section 26 had no application. Held that the High Court erred in applying Section 26 to quash the cognizance (Paras 1-3). C) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Remand for Fresh Consideration - Section 401, Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Article 21 Constitution of India - The High Court did not decide the respondent's other grounds, including the alleged violation of the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21. The Supreme Court set aside the quashing order and remanded the criminal revision petition to the High Court for fresh decision on merits after hearing the parties, permitting the respondent to raise all available pleas including the effect of superannuation. Held that the High Court must dispose of the matter expeditiously (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether cognizance taken on 9.7.1988 by a Special Court constituted under West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949 for an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was saved after the 1947 Act was repealed by Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and whether Section 26 or Section 30 of the 1988 Act governed the validity of such cognizance.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order quashing Special Case No.1 of 1988, and remanded the criminal revision petition to the High Court for fresh decision on merits after hearing the parties, with liberty to the respondent to raise all pleas available in law including the effect of superannuation. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Under Section 30(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- anything done or any action taken under Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1947 before repeal is deemed done under corresponding provisions of 1988 Act
- Section 26 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 applies only to Special Judges appointed under Criminal Law Amendment Act
- 1952
- not to Special Courts constituted under West Bengal Special Courts Act
- 1949
- cognizance taken by Special Court under 1947 Act stood saved after repeal by 1988 Act.
