Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from three criminal revision petitions filed in the High Court of Assam and Nagaland challenging proceedings pending before the Special Judge, Gauhati. The accused were charged under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 5(2), 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation was conducted by an Inspector of the Delhi Special Police Establishment pursuant to an order of a Magistrate of the First Class at Delhi. Before the Division Bench of the High Court, four contentions were advanced: first, that the Special Judge at Gauhati lacked jurisdiction because the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was not extended to NEFA; second, that consent of the Assam Government was not obtained under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act; third, that the investigating officer being an Inspector of Police could not investigate without a valid order under Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, allegedly given mechanically; and fourth, that no sanction under Section 196A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was taken before cognizance. The Division Bench unanimously rejected the first two contentions but was divided on the third and fourth. The case was then referred under Section 429 CrPC to a third Judge. Before the third Judge, a new contention was raised that the Magistrate at Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to sanction investigation for offences committed in Assam. The third Judge held that an order of a Magistrate of local jurisdiction was necessary and excepting a Magistrate of the district where the crime was committed, no other Magistrate outside the jurisdiction could make an order for investigation. He also held that the Delhi Magistrate did not apply his mind. Consequently, the proceedings before the Special Judge were quashed. The Union of India appealed by certificate to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court first addressed whether the new plea could be raised before the third Judge. It held, following Hethubha & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, that the language of Section 429 CrPC is explicit that the whole case with the opinions of the Judges comprising the Court of Appeal shall be laid before another Judge, and the judgment or order shall follow the opinion of the third Judge. Therefore, the third Judge could deal with the entire case, including new contentions. On the main issue, the Court interpreted Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which prohibited police officers below specified ranks from investigating offences under Section 161, 165 or 165A IPC or under Section 5(2) of the Act without the order of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class. The appellants argued that any first class Magistrate anywhere could grant such order because Section 5A did not mention territorial limitation. The Court rejected this by examining the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It noted that Presidency Magistrates exercise jurisdiction within their presidency towns, and first class Magistrates are appointed for districts. Section 12(2) CrPC provides that the jurisdiction and powers of such Magistrates extend throughout the district, not beyond. Section 5A is a special provision regulating the manner of investigation but does not override the territorial jurisdiction of Magistrates. A Magistrate orders investigation in a case which he has power to inquire into or try, and such power is inherently limited to his local jurisdiction. The Court held that the Magistrate at Delhi could not validly order investigation for offences committed in Assam. The orders of investigation were therefore rightly quashed by the High Court. The appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Reference to Third Judge on Difference of Opinion - Scope of Hearing by Third Judge Under Section 429 CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 429 - The issue was whether a new plea regarding Delhi Magistrate's competency could be raised before the third Judge when not raised before the Division Bench. Relying on Hethubha & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, the Court held that Section 429 requires the entire case to be laid before the third Judge and his opinion becomes the judgment; therefore the third Judge could deal with the whole case including new contentions. Held that the third Judge was empowered to consider the new plea. (Paras 463D) B) Criminal Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction of Magistrate - Power to Order Investigation Under Section 5A of Prevention of Corruption Act - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sections 12 and 6; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 5A - The question was whether a Magistrate at Delhi could authorize investigation of offences committed in Assam. The Court held that a Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 12(2) CrPC extends throughout the district where appointed, not beyond; Section 5A does not confer all-India jurisdiction. The order of investigation by the Delhi Magistrate was invalid because he had no power to inquire into or try offences outside his territorial limits. Held that the High Court rightly quashed the proceedings. (Paras 464E-G, 465A-F)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a new plea about territorial competency of Delhi Magistrate to sanction investigation could be raised before the third Judge under Section 429 CrPC; Whether a Magistrate at Delhi had jurisdiction to authorize investigation by an Inspector of Delhi Special Police Establishment for offences committed in Assam under Section 5A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The appeals were dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the order of investigation made by the Magistrate at Delhi for investigation of cases in the State of Assam was not a valid and competent order within the powers of the Magistrate at Delhi. The orders of investigation were therefore rightly quashed by the High Court.
Law Points
- Under Section 429 CrPC
- third Judge hears whole case and his opinion becomes judgment
- Magistrate's jurisdiction to order investigation under Section 5A of Prevention of Corruption Act is limited to his territorial district or presidency town
- Section 12(2) CrPC does not extend Magistrate's jurisdiction beyond the district
- Delhi Magistrate cannot authorize investigation for offences committed in Assam
- special Act does not override territorial jurisdiction of Magistrates
- local jurisdiction of Magistrate is essential for valid investigation order
- quashing of proceedings upheld
