MANOJ SINGH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision is directed against the order dated 4.7.2018 passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act of 1988')/1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.2 of 2018, whereby, the Learned Judge, holding that he is a Special Judge/an Additional Sessions Judge not a Magistrate within the meaning of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (henceforth 'the Code'), rejected the application filed by the Applicant under Section 437(6) of the Code and held that the Applicant is not entitled to be considered for grant of bail under Section 437(6) of the Code.

(2.) A charge-sheet for offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 was filed against the Applicant. Charges were framed by the Trial Court and the first date for taking evidence was fixed for 28.4.2018. On 4.7.2018, an application under Section 437(6) of the Code was filed on behalf of the Applicant on the ground that the trial could not be concluded within 60 days from 28.4.2018, therefore, the Applicant is entitled to get benefit of bail under the provision contained in Section 437(6) of the Code. Vide the impugned order dated 4.7.2018, the Learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application on the ground that the provision of Section 437(6) of the Code is applicable to the Court of a Magistrate only and not to the Court of a Special Judge because, as contained in Section 3(2) of the Act of 1988, a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge is appointed as a Special Judge to hear the cases relating to the offences punishable under the Act of 1988.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that while trying an offence punishable under the Act of 1988, a Special Judge exercises jurisdiction and conducts trial of an accused in warrant cases as contained in sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act of 1988 and not as per the procedure prescribed for a trial before a Court of Session under Chapter 18 of the Code. The Special Judge conducts trial as per Chapter 19 of the Code, i.e., as per Sections 238 to 243 and Sections 248 to 250 of the Code and thus, in trial of warrant cases, the provision of Section 437(6) of the Code is applicable. He further submitted that in (Bangaru Laxman v. State, (2012) 1 SCC 500), the Supreme Court has held that a Special Judge trying the offences under the Act of 1988 has dual power of a Sessions Judge as well that of a Magistrate. Such a Special Judge conducts the proceedings under the Code both prior to filing of a charge-sheet as well after the filing of charge-sheet for holding a trial. The Supreme Court further held about concurrent jurisdiction of a Special Judge as well as of a Judicial Magistrate. Learned Counsel for the Applicant further submitted that as contained in sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act of 1988, a Special Judge may take cognizance of offences without the accused being committed to him for trial and, in trying the accused persons, shall follow the procedure prescribed by the Code, for the trial of warrant cases by the Magistrates. Thus, it is clear that for the purpose of trial, a Special Judge appointed under the Act of 1988 acts as a Magistrate and exercises his jurisdiction and hence, provision of Section 437(6) of the Code is applicable to a Special Judge appointed under the Act of 1988. Therefore, the ground on which the Special Judge, in the instant case, has rejected the application under Section 437(6) of the Code is not in accordance with law.