Holding

A Special Court constituted by a Judicial Magistrate First Class retains its jurisdiction to try IPC offences, and the magistrate is not required to record reasons or examine a public‑servant complainant; consequently, the criminal proceedings were quashed.

Summary

The Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports filed complaints against Roshanlal Agarwal and others under several IPC sections and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The complaints were tried before a Special Court (Economic Offences) constituted by a Karnataka notification that created a Judicial Magistrate First Class to hear offences under a specified schedule of Acts. The Karnataka High Court held that the Special Court lacked jurisdiction to try the IPC offences, leading to the respondents' discharge. The Supreme Court held that the notification did not divest the magistrate of his statutory jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, so the Special Court could try IPC offences and that a magistrate need not record reasons or examine a public‑servant complainant when taking cognizance. Finally, on the ground that the respondents had been exonerated in departmental proceedings, the Court quashed the criminal prosecutions, disposing of the appeals in favour of the appellant.

Issues considered

Whether a Special Court created under a state notification under the proviso to Section 11 of the CrPC loses jurisdiction to try offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code.
Whether a magistrate must record reasons or examine the complainant when taking cognizance of an offence under Section 200 of the CrPC.
Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed in view of the departmental exoneration of the respondents.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 11, s. 200, s. 245, s. 26, s. 2(j), s. 3(4), s. 4, s. 482
Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947s. 5, s. 6
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120-B, s. 21, s. 420, s. 467, s. 468, s. 471

Subjects

Special CourtjurisdictionCriminal Procedure CodeIndian Penal CodemagistratenotificationquashImports and Exports (Control) Actpublic servant complaintSection 200 CrPCSection 482 CrPC

Judgment

I
~

DY. CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS A
v.
ROSHANLAL AGARWAL AND ORS.

MARCH 5, 2003

[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] B

Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947; Section 5/Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section I 1(1) rlw Section 2(J), Sections 26, 245
& 482:
c
Issuance of notifications by the State under the Provisions ofCr.P.C.-
Estab/ishment of Special Court for trial of offences under the specified Acts-
Tria/ of offences under the Penal Code-Challenge to-Rejected by Special
Court-Revision Petitions dismissed by Sessions Court-Petition under Section
482 Cr.P. C. allowed by High Court holding that Special Court could only t1y D
offences under the specified Acts-On appeal, held, since only effect of
notification was trial of offences under various Acts by the Special Court, it
1s wrong to conclude that Special Court presided by a Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, lost the jurisdiction to try offences under the Penal Code when
such powers or jurisdiction were not curtailed by the notification-Penal
Code, 1860; Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B /PC. E
Practice and Procedure:

Complaint by a public servant-Initiation of proceedings by Judicial
Magistrate Special Court without recording statement and reasons-
Correctness of-Held: When Judicial Magistrate is satisfied that sufficient F
ground exists for proceeding against the accused, he is neither required to
record reasons before issuance ofprocess nor _required to record the statement
of the public servant who has filed the complaint in discharge of his official
duty.

Appellant-Authority filed complaints against respondents for offences G
committed under various provisions of IPC and Imports and Exports
(Control) Act. Applications of the respondents for their discharge was rejected
by the Special Court (Economic Offences). Revision applications were
dismissed by the Court of Sessions. Respondents' petitions under Section 482
Cr.P.C. were allowed by the High Court holding that the Special Court had H
621
I
\
)-

622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) 2 S.C.R.

A no jurisdiction to try offences under the Penal Code; besides, the complainant
was not examined under the provisions of Cr.P.C. Hence the present appeal
filed by the Authority.
'
It was contended for the appellant that merely because Special Courts
were established on the basis of notification to deal with offences under certain
B Acts, such Courts would not be divested of jurisdiction to try offences under
the Penal Code.

On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that since the jurisdiction
of the Court was confined to Acts specified in the Schedule of notification, it
C could not try other offences including under the IPC.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The Imports and Exports (Control) Act does not make any
provision for regulating the manner of trying of offences under the Act and,
D therefore, they have to be inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with
according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These
provisions show that all the offences under the Indian Penal Code, which
according to the allegations made in the complaints have been committed by
the respondents, are triable by a Magistrate of the First Class. (626-B-E]

E 1.2. State Government can issue a notification for creation of a Special
Court under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 Cr.P.C which nowhere
says that upon issuance of such a notification the concerned Judicial
Magistrate would be divested of the power and jurisdiction Which he otherwise
had under the Code. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, who by virtue of
·-.-.,
the notification became a Special Court (Economic Offences), was not divested
F of the jurisdiction which he otherwise possessed under Section 26 of the Code.
Therefore, the Spedal Court (Economic Offences), which is presided by a
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, continued to have the jurisdiction to try the
offences under the Indian Penal Code, which he was otherwise empowered
in view of First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The language
G of the notification also does not show that powers or jurisdiction of a Judicial
Magistrate, who is to perform the functions of a Special Cou:rt (Economic
Offences) to try the offences under the Acts mentioned in the Schedule are
being affected or curtailed in any manner. Thus, the Special Court (Economic
Offences) before whom the complaints had been filed, had the jurisdiction to
try the Offences under the Indian Penal Code. 1627-D-GI
H
DY. CHIEFCONffiOLLER OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS 1·. ROSHANLALAGARWAL 623
1.3. The Acts mentioned in the Schedule to the notification issued by A
the State Government do not themselves provide for creation of any Special
Court nor do they lay down the procedure for trial of the offenCl!fl therein.
The only effect of the notification was that instead of the trials being held in
the Courts of various Judicial Magistrates posted in Bangalore Metropolitan
Area and in the District of Bangalore, they were all to be tried by ofie Court. B
{628cDJ

2.1. In determining the question whether any process is to be issued or
not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there is sufficient
ground for proceeding and not, whether there is sufficient ground for
conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, C
can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry; At the
stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to
record reasons. This being the settled legal position, the order passed by the
Magistrate could ·not be faulted on this ground. (628-H; 629-A, DJ

2.2. Section 6 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act provides that D
no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable und11r Section 5
except upon a complaint in writing made by an officer authorised in .ttiis behalf
by the Central Government by a general or a speclai order. Proviso (a) to
Section 200 Cr.P.C. fays down that If a public servant acting or purpottlng
to act in the discharge of his official duties has made the complait1t In writing, E
the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses. The
Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, a public servant, had fifed
the complaint in discharge of his official duty. The Magistrate was, therefore,
fully justified in taking cognizance of the offences without recording the
statement of the complainant (629~E-HJ
•

3. Having regard to the facts that the Imports and. Exports (Control)
F
Act which has since been repealed and in the depllrtmeilfal proceedings taken
under the Act, the Ceritriil Government has passed otdetS in favour of the
.- '
- '·' -· .. ·' "' . . .. '
respondent; and having regard to die ·material e\isting against the respondents
and the reasons and findings given in the orders passed by the Additional
Director General of Foreign Trade and Appellate Committee Cell, Ministry G
of Commerce, Government of India, no useful purpose would be served by
the trial of the accused-respondents in the criminal Court at this stage. The
proceedings of the criminal cases instituted against the accusM•respondents
are quashed. (630-B-DI
H
).

624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos.
1656-1663 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 7.8.1995 of the Karnataka High
Court in Crl. P. Nos. 115, 114, 113, 214, 112, 215, 216/90 and 1367of1989.

B P.P. Malhotra and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Appellant.

Ashok H. Desai, Rajan Narain, Alok Sen Gupta, Ms. Sushma Sharma,
Ajay Aggarwal and Mridual for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c G.P. MA THUR, J. The Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports
filed eight complaints against several persons including the respondents herein
for their prosecution under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and
Section 5 of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The respondents
(accused nos.3, 4 and 5) filed applications under Section 245 Cr.P.C. in all
D the cases praying for their discharge. These applications were rejected by the
Special Court (Economic Offences) on February 24, 1986 and the revisions
preferred against the said order were also dismissed by 6th Additional Sessions
Judge on July 20, 1989. Thereafter, the Respondents filed petitions under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. which were allowed by the High Court of Karnataka by
E the judgment and order dated August 7, 1995 and the orders passed by the
Special Court (Economic Offences) and the Sessions Judge were set aside
and the applications filed under Section 245 Cr.P.C. were allowed and the
respondents were discharged. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the
Deputy' Chief Controller of Imports and Exports has filed these appeals by
special leave.
F
The main ground on which the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
have. been allowed by the High Court is that the Special Court (Economic
Offences), Bangalore, had no jurisdiction to try the offences under the Indian
Penal Code or any other law except the offences under the Acts mentioned
--
in the Schedule to the Notification by which the said Special Court was
G created. The other grounds are that the complainant was not examined as a
witness by the Special Court as required by Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that the
Presiding Officer of the Special Court had not applied his judicial mind to the
complaint before taking cognizance of the offences.

The Government of Karnataka, exercising powers conferred by proviso
H
j
DY. CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS 1•. ROSHANLAL AGARWAL [MATHUR,J.] 625

to sub-section (I) of Section 11 read with Section 2U) of Code of Criminal A
Procedure and in consultation with the High Court of Karnataka issued a
notification on September I0, 1982 for establishing a Special Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class called the Special Court (Economic Offences), for the
trial of offences under the Acts specified in the Schedule having jurisdiction
within the local area of the revenue district of Bangalore including the B
Bangalore Metropolitan Area. The Schedule mentioned 12 Acts including the
Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, Income Tax Act, Customs Act,
\
FERA and Central Excise and Salt Act, etc. The High Court accepted the
contention of the accused-respondents herein that in view of the aforesaid
notification the Special Court (Economic Offences) could only try offences
under the Acts mentioned in the Schedule but had no jurisdiction to try C
offences under the Indian Penal Code.

Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the view taken by the High Court is against the provisions of Code of
Criminal Procedure and merely on account of the fact the Special Court had
been created by issuing a notification under proviso to sub-section (I) of D
Section 11 of the aforesaid Code, the said Court would not be divested of the
jurisdiction to try offences under the Indian Penal Code. Shri Ashok Desai,
learned senior counsel appearing for the accused-respondents has, on the
other hand, submitted that the effect of the notification was that the jurisdiction
of the Special Court was confined to the offences under the Acts mentioned E
in the Schedule and it could not try any other offence including that under
the· Indian Penal Code.

In our opinion, the plea raised by the accused-respondents is plainly
against the scheme and provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short
"the Code"). Clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Code provides p
that where, under any law, other than the Code, the functions exercisable by
a Magistrate relate to matters which involve the appreciation or sifting of
evidence or the formulation of any decision which exposes any person to any
punishment or penalty or detention in custody pending investigation, inquiry
or trial or would have the effect of sending him for trial before any Court,
they shall, subject to the provisions of the Code, be exercisable by a Judicial G
Magistrate.
., Trial under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947
would, inter alia, involve appreciation or sifting of evidence or the formulation
of any decision which may expose the accused to any punishment or penalty H
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid provision this can only be held by a
Judicial Magistrate and not by any other authority. Sub-section ( l) of Section
4 of the Code lays down that all offences under the Indian Penal Code shall
be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the
provisions contained in the Code. Sub-section (2) of the same Section lays
B down that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired
into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but
subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner
or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such
offences. The Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 does not make any
provision for regulating the manner of trying of offences under the said Act
C and, therefore, they have to be inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with
according to the provisions of the Code. Section 26 of the Code lays down
that subject to the other provisions of the Code any offence under the Indian
Penal Code may be tried by (i) the High Court, or (ii) the Court of Session,
or (iii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule
to be triable. The First Schedule of the Code shows that the offences under
D Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 !PC are triable by a Magistrate of the First
Class. The offence under Section 120-B !PC, according to the Schedule, is
triable by the Court by which abetment of the offence which is the object of
the conspiracy is triable. These provisions show that all the offences under
the Indian Penal Code, which according to the allegations made in the
E complaints have been committed by the respondents, are triable by a Magistrate
of the First Class. As mentioned earlier, in view of specific provision contained
in.clause (a) ofsub-.sectie>n (4} of Section 3 of the Code, it is only a Judicial
Magistrate who· can try an offence under the Imports and Exports (Control)
Act, 194 7 an<funder se'diOn' 2() of the Code such a Magistrate has also the
jurisdiction to try those offences under the Indian Penal Code, which the
F respondents a~e alleged to have committed. The relevant part of the Notification
issued by the State Government on September 10, I 982 reads as under :

"In partial modification of the Notification No.LAW I 06 LCE 79,
dated Ist Septemqer, l 982 and in exercise of the powers conferred by
the proviso to sub-section (I) of Section 11 read with clause (j) of
0 Section 2 and Section 18 of the Code of Crim in al Procedure, 1973,
(Central Act 2of1974) the Government ofKarnataka, in consultation
with the High Court of Karnataka, establishes for a period of one
year with effect from the 13th day of September 1982 a Special Court
of Judicial Magistrate First Chm called the Special Court (Economic
H Offences), Bangalore Metropolitan Area and the District nf Bangalore
DY. CHIEF CONT110LLER OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS r. ROSHANLAL AGARWAL [MATHUR. J.] 62 7

for the trial of offences under the Acts specified in the schedule A
having jurisdiction within the local area of the revenue district of
Bangalore including the Bangalore Metropolitan area."

The notification has been issued in exercise of power conferred by
proviso to sub-section (I) of Section I I of the Code and this provision only
empowers the State Government to create, after consultation with the High B
Court, Special Courts of Judicial Magistrate to try any case or class of cases
~ in a local area. Local jurisdiction has been defined in Section 2U) of the
Code and in relation to a Court or Magistrate, it means the local area within
which the Court or Magistrate may exercise all or any of its or his powers
under the Code, and such local area may comprise the whole of the State,
or any part of the State, as the State Government may, by notification, c
specify. According to this provision, the State Government can create one
Court for a local area which may comprise the whole of State or any part
of the State and in the present case it was Bangalore Metropolitan Area and
the District of Bangalore. The source of power for the State Government to
issue a notification for creation of a Special Court is proviso to sub-section D
(I) of Section I I of the Code and this provision nowhere says that upon
~
issuance of such a notification the concerned Judicial Magistrate would be
divested of the power and jurisdiction which he otherwise had under the
Code. The Judicial Magistrat~, First Class, who by virtue of the notification
became a Special Court (Economic Offences) was not divested of the
jurisdiction which he otherwise possessed under Section 26 of the Code. E
Therefore, the Special Court (Economic Offences), which is presided by a
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, continued to have the jurisdiction to try the
offences under the Indian Penal Code, which he was otherwise empowered
in view of First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The language
of the notification also does not show that powers or jurisdiction of a Judicial F
Magistrate, who is to perform the functions of a Special Court (Economic
Offences) to try the offences under the Acts mentioned in the Schedule are
being affected or curtailed in any manner. Therefore, the Special Court
(Economic Offences) before whom the complaints had been filed, had the
jurisdiction to try the offences under the Indian Penal Code and the view to
the contrary taken by the High Court is clearly erroneous in law. G

The only reason given by the High Court in holding that the Special
Court (Economic Offences) had no jurisdiction to try the offences under the
Indian Penal Code is that in some other Statutes wherein Special Courts have
been created. a specific provision had been made conferring power upon
---t H
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A such Courts to try the offences under the Indian Penal Code and in absence
of such a provision here, the Special Court (Economic Offences) would not
have the jurisdiction to try the offences under the Indian Penal Code. In this
connection, the High Court has referred to Section 5 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, Section l 2AA of the Essential Commodities Act and Section
B 9 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and on the basis
of these provisions such a conclusion has been drawn. In our opinion, the
aforesaid reasoning of the High Court is wholly fallacious. The enactments
referred to above by the High Court are Special Statutes which themselves ~
created the offences, made specific provision for appointment of a Special
Judge vr a Designated Court for trial of offences, laid down their powers and
C also made specific provisions regarding procedure which was to be followed
by such Courts. Such is not the position here. The State Government has
merely exercised power under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the
Code for creation of a Special Court. The Acts mentioned in the Schedule to
the notification issued by the State Government do not themselves provide
for creation of any Special Court nor do they lay down the procedure for trial
D of the offences therein. The only effect of the notification was that instead
of the trials being held in the Courts of various Judicial Magistrates posted
in Bangalore Metropolitan Area and in the District of Bangalore, they were
all to be tried by one Court. The High Court was plainly wrong in drawing
any analogy form Special Statutes which themselves created offences and
E also made provisions for trial before the Special Court or Designated Court
created therein. The position being entirely different here, there is absolutely
no scope for holding that the Special Court (Economic Offences) which was
presided by a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class lost the jurisdiction to try
offences under the Indian Penal Code.

F The second reason given by the High Court for allowing the petition
filed by the respondents (accused) is that the order passed by the Special
Court taking cognizance of the offence does not show that the learned
Magistrate had even perused the complaint or that he had applied his judicial
mind before taking of the cognizance. The order passed by the learned
G Magistrate reads as under :
"Cognizance taken. Register the case.
Issue summons to the accused."

In determining th question whether any process is to be issued or not,
0

H what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there. is sufficient ground
j
DY.CHIEFCONIROLLEROFIMPORTSANDEXPORTS •·.ROSHANLALAGARWAL[MATilUR,J.J629

for proceeding and not, whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. A
Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be
determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of
issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record
reasons. This question was considered recently in UP. Pollution Control
Board v. Mis. Mohan Meakins Ltd and Ors., AIR (2000) SC 1456 and after
noticing the law laid down in Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal, B
AIR (2000) SC 522, it was held as follows :
\
"The legislature has stressed the need to record reasons in certain
situations such as dismissal pf a complaint without issuing process.
There is no such legal requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passing C
detailed order while issuing sum1no11s. The process issued to accused
cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the Magistrate had not
passed a speaking order."

This being the settlec? l~gal position, the order passed by the learned
Magistrate coulcl not be fi\;ilted on the ground given by the High Court. D
The High Court has gone to the extem of saying that as the Deputy
Chief Controller of Imports and Exports had not been examined as a witness,
the procedure prescribed by Section 200 Cr.P.C. had not been followed and,
therefore, the order passed by ihe Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences
was illegal. With respect, we find it difficult to comprehend the afores~id E
reasoning of the High Court. Section 6 of the Imports and Exports (Control)
Act provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable
under Section 5 except upon a complaint in writing made by an officer
authorised in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or a special
order. That the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports had been so
authorised by the Central Government is not in dispute. Proviso (a) to Section F
200 Cr.P.C. lays down that if a public servant acting or purporting to act in
the discharge of his official cluties has made the complaint in writing, the
Magistrate need not exami~e the complainant and the witnesses. In view of
Twelfth clause of Section 21 !PC which provides \hat every person in the
service or pay of the Government or remuneratecl by fees or commission for G
the performance of any public duty by the Government shall be a public
servant, the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports is a public
servant. It is also not the case of the accused-respondents that the Deputy
Chief Controller of Imports and Exports is not a public servant. The complain\
was filed by him in discharge of his official duty. The learned Magistrate
was, therefore, fully justified in taking cognizance of the offences without H
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A recording the statement of the complainant. For the reasons discussed above,
we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court is wholly
unsustainable in law and must be set aside.

Jn view of the findings recorded by us, the learned Magistrate has to
proceed with the trial of the accused-respondents. Shri Ashok Desai, learned
B senior counsel has, however, submitted that the Imports and Exports (Control)
Act, 194 7 has since been repealed and in the departmental proceedings taken
under the aforesaid Act, the Central Government has passed orders in favour
of the respondents and, therefore, their trial before the criminal court at this
stage would be an exercise in futility. He has placed before us copies of the
C orders pass.ed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade on August
16, 1993 and also by the Appellate Committee Cell, Ministry of Commerce,
Government of India on March 13, 1997 by which the appeals preferred by
the respondents were allowed by the Appellate Committee and the accused-
respondents were exonerated. Having regard to the material existing against
the respondents and the reasons and findings given in the aforesaid orders,
D we are of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by the trial of
the accused-respondents in the criminal court at this stage. The proceedings
of the criminal cases instituted against the accused-respondents on the' basis
of the complaints filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports
are, therefore, quashed.
E The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

S.K.S. Appeals disposed of.