MAHESH KUMAR JINDAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The short and only point for determination in these two revisional applications heard together is whether the Judge of a Special Court constituted under the Essential Commodities Act (later referred to as the Act) can direct further investigation by the police when he finds himself unable to agree with the recommendations made in a police report submitted before him. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, the applications will stand rejected; otherwise it will be allowed and the impugned orders will be struck down. It is not necessary to reproduce the facts.

(2.) Mr. Roy, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the application has argued that section 12AA of the Act is a complete code of procedure to be followed by a Special Court subject only to the provisions of section 12AC of the Act. This section runs as follows :-

(3.) Since there is no obligation upon the police to arrest as accused during the investigation of a case, it is conceivable that a police report may be submitted before h Special Court with a prayer to issue process against the accused. Now, if the section 12AA of the Act is regarded as a complete Code of Procedure with no other power except as envisaged by section 12AC and as interpreted by Mr. Roy, then the position will be that car perusal of the police report and on taking cognizance on it, the Judge will have no power to issue process against the accused because after taking cognizance process upon an accused can be issued under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has no application in relation to a proceeding before a Court of Sessions. Again, if a police report submitted before a Special Court recommends no action, commonly called a final report, the Judge even if, he agrees with it will not be in a position to make an order for discharge of the accused from bond under section 173(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as this section too applies only to a proceeding before a Magistrate and not before a Sessions Judge. Thus we find that an undue emphasis on the word "said" in section 12AC of the Act so as to mean only those provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure which applied to a proceeding before a Sessions Judge will result in an absurd situation which could not have been the intention of the legislature. Reading sections 12AA and 12AC of the Act together, a fair and rational conclusion is that the former by no means provide a complete Code of Procedure for the Special Court constituted under the Act and all the previsions of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply to a proceeding before such a Court unless otherwise provided in the Act itself. Thus a Special Court constituted under the Act which is empowered to take cognizance on a police report submitted before it without the accused being committed must be regarded as a Criminal Court of original jurisdiction clothed with all the powers exercisable by such a Court unless expressly excluded and, therefore, it can very well direct further investigation by police under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if such investigation is considered necessary upon perusal of the police report submitted before, it. Relying upon a decision of Allahabad High Court, this view has also been taken by Karnataka High Court in M/s. Premier Irrigation Equipment Limited and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another, 1987 Cr LJ 1404, though on a somewhat different consideration.