MANAGER UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK Vs. RAVI PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Short question which these connected applications made under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure give rise is whether the cases out of which they arise lie within the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate or as to whether the exclusive jurisdiction to try them vests in the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Jhansi. During March 20, 1971 to April 12, 1976 Ravi Prakash Srivastava-the respondent was a clerk in the employment of the United Commercial Bank, Bara Bazar, Jhansi. First information reports were lodged against him by several persons alleging that he had dishonestly and fraudulently for the sake of pecuniary gain to himself and others made entries on the credit and debits sides fictitiously in the different accounts maintained at the Bank and misappropriated the amount to himself. Upon investigation charge sheet was submitted against the respondent by the investigating agency of offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 120 B Penal Code read with Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. This was in August/September, 1977; sanction under section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was accorded by the Deputy General Manager under his order dated April 19, 1978. The investigation, it appears, sought advice of the District Government Counsel (Criminal), Jhansi where after a revised charge sheet was submitted in these cases in January, 1980 wherein a reference to offence under Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act was omitted. Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charge against the respondent for offences under Sections 468 or 409 Penal Code. Certain witnesses were examined also from the side of the prosecution. On October 16, 1984 counsel for the United Commercial Bank put in application in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate contending that the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Jhansi had the exclusive jurisdiction to try these cases in view of the offences committed allegedly under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and, therefore, the cases were liable to transfer to that court. The application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in each of these cases under similar order passed on November 30, 1984. Aggrieved the United Bank has through its Manager approached this Court.

(2.) Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate records that the respondent is a public servant and also that the revised charge sheet was submitted in view of the advice obtained from the District Government Counsel. It is observed, however, that since in the revised charge sheet there is no reference of the offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and because none of the witnesses on the prosecution side had stated that the deposit was taken by the respondent, there could not be said to be a case made out of offence under that provision. It is observed further in the order that if in the course of evidence there appears evidence that the accused has committed offence punishable under this provision, the case shall be remitted to the court of the Special Judge.

(3.) Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 as appears from the preamble, amends the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure and provides for a more speedy trial of certain offences. Section 6 provides for the appointment of the Special Judge and empowers the State Government by notification in the gazette to appoint as many Special Judges as may be necessary for such area as may be specified in the notification to try offences punishable under Sections 161, 165 or Section 165-A Penal Code or Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abatement of the offences specified above. Section 7 in so far as relevant provides: 117 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or in any other law the offences specified in Sub-Section (1) of Section 6 shall be triable by Special Judges only.(3) When trying any case, Special Judge may also try offence other than an offence specified in Section 6 with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be charged at the same trial.