STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BHAGABAT PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rejection of States motion before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge, Jaipur with conclusion that he has jurisdiction to try the opposite party - Bhagabat Panda (hereinafter referred to as the accused) for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short TIPC) and under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short, the TAce) has brought the matter before this Court.

(2.) Background facts leading to filing of the present application are essentially as follows: Opposite party as accused is facing trial in G.R Case No. 31 of 1984 for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and under Section 7 of the Act. The aforesaid G. R case relates to Cuttack Vigilance Case No. 31 of 1984. The prosecution case is that on 21-3-1987 the opposite party posing himself as President of Jagada House Building Co-operative Society managed to receive 480 Metric Tonnes of levy cement from the Government and disposed of the same in open market. On 24-8-1995, the Public Prosecutor filed a petition in the Court of Special Judge, Jaipur stating therein that the said Court had no power to try the offence under Section 420. IPC along with Section 7 of the Act, as the latter offence is tried by a summary procedure. The learned AddI. Sessions Judge-cum-special Judge held that he had got jurisdiction to try the offence under warrant procedure, if in the same transaction the accused committed any offence apart from the offences under the Act. Reference was made to Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short. the Code) which authorises the Court to try all the offences committed by the accused in one transaction. The learned Special Judge held that he can try the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act by adopting warrant procedure, and therefore there is no difficulty.

(3.) Mr. R.K. Mohanty learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has got no jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 420. IPC. Reference was made to Sub-section (2) of Section 12-AA in this regard. It is his stand that Sub-section (2) of Section 12AA of the Act lays down that the Special Court trying an offence under the Act may also try an offence other than an offence under the Act with which the accused may under the Code be charged at the same trial; provided that such offence is under any other law for the time being in force triable in a summary way. The distinctive feature according to him is that an offence under the Act is to be tried in a summary way where it cannot be done in an offence under Section 420. IPC. Mr. D.P. Sarangi for the accused. However, supported the order.