AMEETA KULKARNI MODI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by means of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, has challenged the notification dated June 18, 1987 (Annexure-1) by which opposite party no. 3, Sri Gaur Chandra was appointed by the High Court as Presiding Officer of the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Lucknow to exercise jurisdiction in the local areas specified in the notification to try or enquire into and to commit to the Court of Sessions all such cases in which investigations are made or charge-sheets filed by the Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. XXV of 1946).

(2.) IT may be stated that there is a Crime Case No. 722 of 1988 registered at P. S. Hazratganj, Lucknow, which was investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as C.B.I.), impleaded in this petition, under our orders passed yesterday, as opposite party no. 4. IT has been stated in para 2 of the petition "that despite the petitioner being innocent, she has been implicated in the case with the aid of section 120-B IPC" and "that the case is pending a the court of opposite party no. 3 mainly for the purposes of compliance and proceedings of section 207 and/or 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".

(3.) BOTH the notifications referred to above were challenged in this court in R. S. Bajpai v. K. K. Ganguly, 1976 CrLJ 514 and it was held that the notifications referred to above were illegal. It appears that it was at this stage that U. P. Ordinance XIII of 1976 was issued followed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (U. P. Amendment) Act, 1976 (U. P. Act Xvl of 1976) which inserted sub- section (1-A) in section 11 of the Code which reads as under :