Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay, in its suo motu revision application, considered a reference made by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai under Section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The reference arose from CBI Special Case No. 47/2000, renumbered as C.C. No. 860/PW/2013, which was originally filed before the Special Judge (CBI), City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Bombay. The case involved charges against accused No.1 Dilip Rao Saheb Kamble, a postman (public servant), and accused Nos. 2 to 5 (non-public servants) for offences under Sections 120B, 420, 409, 411, 467, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On 31.07.2013, the Special Judge directed that the record and proceedings be sent to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai for due assignment. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate forwarded the case to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai on 22.10.2013. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, being assigned CBI cases (Anti Corruption Bureau and Bank Security and Fraud Cell), entertained a doubt regarding his jurisdiction to try the case and made a reference to the High Court. The High Court examined the maintainability of the reference and the jurisdictional issue. The court noted that the reference was made under Section 395(2) CrPC, which allows a Magistrate to refer a question of law to the High Court if he doubts the validity of any Act, Ordinance, Regulation, or any provision thereof. However, the court observed that the Magistrate's doubt was not about the validity of any provision but about his own jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the court proceeded to answer the reference on merits. The court held that the Magistrate has jurisdiction to try the case as the Special Judge's order transferring the case was valid and the Magistrate is competent to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. The court directed the Magistrate to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Reference under Section 395(2) CrPC - Maintainability - Reference made by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to High Court regarding jurisdiction to try CBI case transferred from Special Judge - Held that reference is maintainable as the Magistrate entertained doubt on jurisdictional question (Paras 1-3). B) Criminal Procedure - Jurisdiction - Trial of CBI cases by Magistrate - Transfer of case from Special Judge to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate - Held that the Magistrate has jurisdiction to try the case as per Section 228(1) CrPC and the order of Special Judge directing transfer was valid (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai has jurisdiction to try CBI Special Case No. 47/2000 after its transfer from the Special Judge (CBI) and whether the reference under Section 395(2) CrPC is maintainable.
Final Decision
The High Court held that the reference is maintainable and the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai has jurisdiction to try CBI Special Case No. 47/2000. The court directed the Magistrate to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Section 395(2) CrPC
- Reference
- Jurisdiction
- Special Judge
- Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
- CBI cases
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Indian Penal Code
- 1860
