EMPEROR Vs. LALIT KUMAR CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has been referred to us by the Sessions Judge of Hooghly in the following circumstances. Four persons were arrested in February last on a charge of having committed an offence under Section 400 of the Indian Penal Code by belonging to a gang of dacoits. Part I of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, has been applied to proceedings in respect of this offence by the Local Government, at what time is not stated, but no doubt on the 5th February. On that day one of the petitioners applied to the District Magistrate of Howrah, who had taken cognizance of the offence, for bail, which was refused. On the 8 February he and two others of the accused applied, no doubt in pursuance of the provisions of Section 498 of the Criminal P. C., to be admitted to bail by the Sessions Judge, who directed that the papers of the case should be called for and fixed a day for hearing the applications. Before the date so fixed the District Magistrate declined to forward the record, on the ground that the provisions of the Criminal P. C. did not apply to the inquiry which he was conducting. The Sessions Judge adjourned the hearing of the applications to the 22nd February, when the Advocate General appeared before him and argued that he had no jurisdiction in respect of proceedings under Part I of the Act. On the 1 March the Sessions Judge held that he had such jurisdiction; but, as he had no materials before him on which to make an order, he has submitted the applications to us for orders.

(2.) On the 24 February a fourth accused applied to the Sessions Judge to be admitted to bail, and though the District Magistrate has not refused, not having been called on, to forward the papers in his case, and though no argument has been heard on it, his application stands on the same footing as the others, and we need not distinguish between the cases of any of the four petitioners.

(3.) No specific question is referred to us by the Sessions Judge, but we have heard counsel on the reference, and there is no doubt that the question we have to decide is whether the Sessions Judge was correct in holding that he had jurisdiction to grant bail in these cases. If he has, it is founded of course on Section 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the material part of which provides that "the High Court or Court of Session may, in any case, whether there be an appeal on conviction or not, direct that any person be admitted to bail." The only restriction which it can be suggested should be placed on the very wide power conferred on the Sessions Judge by this section is, for present purposes, that contained in Section 14(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908, which is as follows:" The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, shall not apply to proceedings taken under this Part, in so far as they are inconsistent with the special procedure prescribed in this Part."