Holding

Section 26 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deems judges appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 as Special Judges under Section 3 of the 1988 Act, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the Principal Sessions Judge to try the offences.

Summary

Vasant Arjunrao Bhandak was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and contended that the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum, lacked jurisdiction because the judge was not a "Special Judge" as defined in Section 3 of the 1988 Act. He argued that the appointment of the judge under a notification issued pursuant to Section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, which created Special Judges for the 1947 Corruption Act, could not be deemed to satisfy the 1988 Act's requirement. The High Court rejected his petition under Cr.P.C. 482, and the matter reached the Supreme Court. The Court examined Section 26 of the 1988 Act, which deems judges appointed under the 1952 Act to be Special Judges under the 1988 Act, and considered the repeal‑and‑saving provision in Section 30(2). It held that the deeming fiction in Section 26 gives the appointed judge jurisdiction to try offences under the 1988 Act, rendering a fresh notification unnecessary. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the trial judge’s jurisdiction affirmed.

Issues considered

Whether a notification under Section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 appointing a Special Judge for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, is deemed to appoint a Special Judge under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Whether Section 26 of the 1988 Act creates a deeming fiction that extends the jurisdiction of judges appointed under the 1952 Act to cases under the 1988 Act.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173, s. 190, s. 216, s. 482
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952s. 6
General Clauses Act, 1897s. 6
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 26, s. 3, s. 30(2)

Subjects

Special JudgePrevention of Corruption Actjurisdictiondeeming fictionSection 26Criminal Law Amendment Actinterpretation of statutesrepeal and saving provisionCrPC 482

Judgment

- VASA NT ARJUNRAO BHAN PAK
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
A

NOVEMBER 12, 2002

[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND B.N. AGARWAL, JJ.] B

Prevention of Corruption Act, I 988-Sections 3, 26, 30(2)---Criminal
Law Amendment Act, 1952-Section 6-Appointment of 'Special Judge'-
Applicabi/ity of Section 6 to 1988 Act-Held, applicable by virtue of deeming C
fiction-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

Interpretation ofStatutes-In order to have proper efficacy to the statutory
intent, the Act shall have to be read as a whole-A deeming fiction has to be
given effect to and any contra view would lead to a violent departure from the
canons of construction and interpretation of statutes. D
Appellant, being prosecuted for offences under provisions of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 filed applications praying to discharge
him, on the ground that the trial Judge had no jurisdiction to try the case
against him as the appointment of the trial Judge could not be termed to
be an appointment as a 'Special Judge' within the meaning of Section 3 E
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Application of the appellant was
rejected by trial Court. His petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was also dismissed
by High Court.

In appeal to this Court the question for consideration was whether
issuance of a notification u/s 6 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, F
appointing 'Special Judge' for any specified area to try offences under
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 would also hold good for the
purpose of Section 3 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: I. It is not correct to say that the applicability of Section 26
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is restrictive in its nature and thus
applicable only to prior proceedings pending before the Special Judge on
the commenc•ment of the Act or to say that any other construction would
render the legislative intent a complete otiose and thus a fresh notification H
57
A
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 4 S.C:R.

under Section 3 of the Act is required to enable the appointment of Special
Judges for proceeding with the new cases under the 1988 Act. 111 order to
-
have proper efficacy to the statutory intent, the Act shall have to be read
as a whole and introduction of Section 26 in the Statute Book has brought
into existence a deeming fiction which have to be given effect to and any
B contra view would lead to a violent departure from the normal canons of
construction and interpretation of statutes. The deeming fiction cannot but
be read into the statute in view of repeal and saving provision as contained
in Section 30(2) of 1988 Act. [60-G; 61-C-DJ

2. On consideration of the entire. facts of the case and having regard
C to Section 30(2) and 26 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in
particular Section 26 thereof, the question of there being a contra view,
does not and cannot arise and thus the Principal Sessions Judge has the
authority and jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 164-B-q

Nar Bahadur Bhandari and Anr. v. State of Sikkim and Ors., [1998) 5
D SCC 39 and Bishambar Nath Kohli and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Ors.. 11966] 2 SCR 158, referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
1138 of 2002.

E From the Judgment and Order dated 19.7.2001 of the Karnataka High
Court in Crl. P. No. 3431 of 2000.

S.S. Javali, S.K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni and
Vijay Kumar, for the Appellants.

F Sanjay R. Hegde and Satya Mitra, for the Respondent.
·,I

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BANERJEE, J. Leave granted.

G A short but an interesting question of law falls for consideration in this
appeal against the order of the High Court of Kamataka, wherein the High
Court dismissed the Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
the proceedings pending before -the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum in
Special Case No.22/94 : the question of law noticed above pertains to whether
issuance of a notification under Section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment
H Act, 1952, appointing the Special Judge for any specified area to-try offences
VASANT ARJUNRAO BHANDAK v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [BANERJEE, J.] 59
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 194 7 would also hold good for the A·
purpose of Section 3 of the Act of 1988 (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988)
as well"

Adve11ing to the factual score briefly at this juncture it appears that the
Appellant being charge-sheeted by the Respondent Authorities was prosecuted
in the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Special Case No.22/94 B
for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The factual score further
depicts that during the pendency of the proceedings the appellant filed an
application under Sections 3, 4 and 17 of the Act of 1988 read with Sections
173, 190 and 216 of the Cr.P.C. praying therein to discharge him, on the C
ground that the learned trial Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the
case against him since the appointment of the learned Jl!dge cannot be termed
or said to be an appointment as a Special Judge within the meaning of
Section 3 of the Act of 1988. It was further contended that in any event the
investigating officer who filed the charge-sheet, was not duly authorised
under Section 17 to investigate into the matter. The learned trial Judge however D
,, rejected the petition.

The appellant thereafter moved the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
for quashing the proceedings upon setting aside the order as passed by the
learned trial Judge. The High Court, however, with a detailed and reasoned
judgment negated such a plea and consequently the petition was dismissed. E
It is by reason of the dismissal of the matter by the High Court, this Court
was moved under Article 136 of the Constitution and upon hearing the
submissions, this Court thought it fit to dispose of the petition at the admission
stage itself.

Coming to the 1natter under consideration, certain statutory provisions
F
ought to be noticed at the initial stage and reference to Section 26 of The
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, would be apposite and which reads as
below:

"26. Special Judges appointed under Act 46 of 1952 to be special G
Judges appointed under this Act. Every special Judge appointed
' under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 for any area or areas
and is holding office on the commencement of this Act shall be
deemed to be a special Judge appointed under section 3 of this Act
for that area or areas and, accordingly, on and from such
commencement, every such Judge shall continue to deal with all the H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A proceedings pending before him on such commencement in accordance
with the provisions of this Act."

It is the appellant's definite contention that the applicability of Section
26 is restrictive in its nature and thus applicable only to prior proceedings
pending before the Special Judge on the commencement of the Act. Mr. S.S.
B Javali, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that
any other construction would render the legislative intent a complete otiose
and thus a fresh notification under Section 3 of the Act is required to enable
the appointment of Special Judges for proceeding with the new cases under
the Act. We are, however, unable to record our concurrence therewith. In
C order to have proper efficacy to the statutory intent the Act shall have to be
read as a whole and introduction of Section 26 in the Statute Book has
brought into existence a deeming fiction which have to be given effect to and
any contra view would lead to a violent departure from the normal canons of
construction and interpretation of statutes. The deeming fiction cannot but be
read into the statute to include the situation as envisaged presently. The
D situation however would stand clarified in any event by having a look at the
repeal and saving provision in particular sub-section (2) of Section 30 which
reads as below :

"30(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, but without prejudice to the
application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of
E 1897), anything done or any action taken or purported to have been
done or taken under or in pursuance of the Acts so repealed shall, in
so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be
deemed to have been done or taken under or in pursuance of the
corresponding provision of this Act."

F Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned Advocate appearing for the State
Government being Respondent herein contended that on an analogy of
reasoning, the appointment of the Special Judge for an area by a notification
issued under Section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 be deemed
to be the appointment ~f a Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of the
G Act for that area or areas. Strong reliance is also placed on the decision of
this Court in Nar Bahadur Bhandari and Anr. v. State of Sikkim and Ors.,
(1998] 5 SCC 39, in support by Mr. Hegde, wherein Srinivasan, J, speaking
for the Bench in paragraph I 0 of the Report stated :

"I 0. The contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners are based on
H a wrong understanding of the provisions of the Act of 1988. No
VASA NT AR.IUNRAO BHANDAK v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [BAN ER.IEE. J.] 6J

doubt, Section 3 of the said Act refers only to offences punishable A
under the Act and the Special Courts constituted under Section 3 will
have jurisdiction to try the offences punishable under the Act but
Section 3 cannot be read in isolation. It should be read along \Vith
other provisions of the Act to understand the scope thereof. Section
30( 1) of the Act of 1988 repeals the Acts of 1947 and 1952. That B
does not mean that any offence which was committed under the Act
of 194 7 would cease to be triable after the repeal of the said Act.
Normally Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would come into play
and enable the continuation of the proceedings including investigation
as if the repealing Act had not been passed. As per the provisions of
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act the position will be as ifthe Act C
of 194 7 continues to be in force for the purpose of trying the offence
within the meaning of the said Act. Section 6 of the General Clauses
Act however makes it clear that the said position will not obtain if a
different intention appears in the repealing Act. In the present case,
the Act of 1988 is the repealing Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 30
reads as follows : D
"30(2) " (omitted to avoid repetition by reason of earlier inclusion)

The said sub-section while on the one hand ensures that the application
of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is not prejudiced, on the
other it expresses a different intention as contemplated by the said E
Section 6. The last part of the above sub-section introduces a legal
fiction whereby anything done or action taken under or in pursuance
of the Act of 1947 shall be deemed to have been done or taken under
or in pursuance of the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1988.
That is, the fiction is to the effect that the Act of 1988 had come into
force when such thing was done or action was taken."
F

Significantly, in Nar Bahadur (supra) this Court did refer to a decision
of the Constitution Bench in B.N. Kohli Bishambar Nath Kohli and Ors. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., [1966] 2 SCR 158, wherein the repealing
of Ordinance 12149 was effected by Ordinance 27/49. Section 58(3) of the G
repealing Ordinance provided as below :

"58(3) The repeal by this Act of the Administration of Evacuee
Property Ordinance, 1949 or the Hyderabad Administration of Evacuee
Property Regulation or of any corresponding law shall not affect the
previous operation of that Ordinance, Regulation or corresponding H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A law, and subject thereto, anything done or any action taken in the
exercise of any power conferred by or under that Ordinance, Regulation
or corresponding law, shall be deemed to have been done or taken in
the exercise of the powers conferred by or under this Act as if this
Act were in force on the day on which such thing was done or action
was taken."
B
It is while interpreting the aforesaid provision, Shah, J. :;peaking for the
Constitution Bench observed as below :

"By the first part of Section 58(3) repeal of the statutes mentioned
therein did not operate to vacate things done or actions taken under
c those statutes. This provision appears to have been enacted with a
view to avoid the possible application of the rule of interpretation
that where a statute expires or is repealed, in the absence of a provision
to the contrary, it is regarded as having never existed except as to
matters and transactions past and closed : [See Surtees v. Ellison,
D (1829) 9 B&C 750]. This rule was altered by an omnibus provision
in General Clauses Act, 1897, relating to the effect of repeal of statutes
by any Central Act or Regulation. By Section 6 of the General Clauses
Act, it is provided, insofar as it is material, that any Central Act or
Regu"Jation made after the commencement of the General Clauses Act
repeals any enactment, the repeal shall not affect the previous operation
E of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered
thereunder, or affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability
acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed, or
affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any
such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or
punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding
F
or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, any such penalty,
forfeiture or punishment may be imposed, as if the Repealing Act or
Regulation had not been passed. But the rule contained in Section 6
applies only if a different intention does not appear, and by enacting
Section 58(3) Parliament has expressed a different intention, for
G whereas the General Clauses Act keeps alive the previous operation
of the enactment repealed, and things done and duly suffered, the
rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities acquired or incurred, and
authorises the 1nvestigation, legal proceedings and remedies in respect
of rights, privileges, obligations, liabilities. penalties, forfeiture and
punishment. as ifthe repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed,
H
VASA NT ARJUNRAO Bl-IANDAK v. STATE OF KARNATAKA lBANERJEE. J.J 63

Section 58(3) of Act 31 of 1950 directs that things done or actions A
taken in exercise of the power conferred by the repealed statutes shall
be deemed to be done or taken under the repealing Act as ifthat latter
Act \Vere in force on the day on \vhich such thing \Vas done, or action
was taken. The rule so enunciated makes a clear depa11ure fro1n the
rule enunciated in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. By the B
first part of Section 58(3) which is in terms negative, the previous
operation of the repealed statutes survives the repeal. Thereby matters
and transactions past and closed re1nain operative; so does the previous
operation of the repealed statute. But as pointed out by this Court in
Indira Sohanlal case (Indira Sohanlal v. Custodian of Evacuee Property
1955 (2) SCR 1117) at p. 1133, the saving of the previous operation C
of the repealed law is not to be read, as saving of future operation of
the previous law. The previous Jaw stands repealed, and it has not for
the future the partial operation as it is prescribed by Section 6 of the
General Clauses Act. All things done and actions taken under the
repealed statute are dee1ned to be done or taken in exercise of the
powers conferred by or under the repealing Act, as if that Act were D
in force on the day on which that thing was done or action was taken.
It was clearly the intention of Parliament that matters and transactions
past and closed were not to be deemed vacated by the repeal of the
statute under which they were done. The previous operation of the
statute repealed was also affirmed expressly but things done or actions E
taken under the repealed statute are to be deemed by fiction to have
been done or taken under the repealing Act."

It is on the above perspective that the reasoning put forth by the High
Court ought also to be noticed :
F
"The provision in Section 26 clearly postulates that any notification
issued by the State Govt. u/s 26 of the Crim in al Law Amendment
Act, appointing the Spl. Judge for any specified area, to try the offences
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, would hold good for
the purpose of Section 3 of the Act of 1988 as well. The ambit of
Section 26 does not admit narrow interpretation so as to restrict its G
area of operation only to those cases under the old Act of 1897 which
were actually pending before the Spl. Judge as on the date of
commencement of the New Act of 1988. Therefore, the State
Government Notification dated 19.11.88 is to be held as a valid
notification for the purpose of Section 3 of the Act of 1988, and that H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A the Prl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, who is appointed
thereunder as the Spl. Judge has jurisdiction and is competent to try
the offences under the Act. The conclusion so arrived at by the learned
Trial Judge by his impugned order, is, therefore, entitled to be upheld."

On consideration of the above and having regard to the provisions of
B law as enunciated hereinbefore, in particular Section 26 thereof, the question
of there being a contra view, apart from what has been observed above does
not and cannot arise and consequently issuance of fresh notification appointing
the Judges, does not and cannot arise and thus the Principal Sessions Judge,
Belgaum has the authority and jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The
C other issue though argued before the High Court as regards the status of the
Investigation Officer by reason of provision of Section 17(c) has not been
seriously raised and we also accordingly need not detain ourselves on that
score. Suffice it however to say that negation of such a contention does have
our concurrence.

D On the wake of the aforesaid, this appeal thus fails and is dismissed.

K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.