Summary
Section 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by Bombay Act 23 of 1951, empowered the State Government to appoint a qualified person as a special Magistrate and to confer upon him powers conferrable upon a judicial Magistrate in respect of a particular case or a particular class or classes of cases or in regard to cases generally in any local area. By a notification dated December 29, 1961, the Government appointed Mr. G to be a Special Judicial Magistrate for the area comprising Greater Bombay and Ratnagiri District and conferred upon him all the powers of a Presidency Magistrate in respect of the trial of the Deogad Gold Seizure case. The petitioners, who are accused in the case, moved the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari for quashing the notification on the ground that the notification and the amended s.14 infringed Art. 14 of'
the Constitution.Held, that the amended s. 14 does not offend Art. 14 and is valid. There is substantially no difference between the powers conferrable by the unmended and by the amended s. 14.M. K. Gopalan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1955] 1 S.C.R.168, relied on.Held, further that the notification constituting a Special Magistrate for the trial of the petitioners was not discriminatory. Amended s. 14 contemplates both a case which is pending and one which may be instituted after the date of the constitution of the Special Magistrate. The constitution of a Special Magistrate does not amount directly or indirectly to a transfer of any 574case. The fact that Mr. G may hold the trial at Bombay and not at Deogad while other similarly situated would be tried at Deogod may result in inconvenience to the petitioners but this could not sustain the plea of discrimination. The charge against the petitioners is in respect of conspiracy at Bombay, Deogad and other places and the petitioners could have been lawfully tried at Bombay. The notification constituted a Special Magistrate and conferred jurisdiction on him both over the place where the petitioners are alleged to have conspired and the place where the offences are alleged to have been actually committed. It did not amount to discrimination that from the judgment of the Special Magistrate an appeal would lie to the High Court while if the petitioners were tried by a Magistrate at Deogad, an appeal would lie to the Sessions judge and then a revision would lie to the High Court. The difference of the venue results from the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the Magistrate trying the case and not from any unequal dealing by the notification.See the full content of this document
Extract
Jagannath Sonu Parkar VS. State Of Maharashtra
PETITIONER: JAGANNATH SONU PARKAR Vs.RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRADATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/10/1962BENCH: SHAH, J.C.BENCH: SHAH, J.C.SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.WANCHOO, K.N.GUPTA, K.C. DASCITATION: 1963 AIR 728 1963 SCR Supl. (1) 573CITATOR INFO : RF 1980 SC1382 (111)ACT: Criminal Trial-Special Judicial Magistrates-Notification constituting and conferring powers on-Change In venue of trial and appeal-If discriminatory-Notification dated Decem- ber 29, 1961, of Bombay Government-Code of Criminal Proce- dure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), s. 14-Bombay Separation of Judi- cial and Executive Functions Act, 1951 (Bom. 23 of 1951)- Constitution of India, Art. 14.JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ PEtitioN No. 65 of 1962.Petition under Art. 32 of the CoNstitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.A. S. R. Chari, R. K. Garg avid K. R. Chaudhri, for the petitioners.N. S. Bindra and R. H. Dhebat, for the respondents.1962. October 11. The judgment of the Court was delivered bySHAH, J.-Being in possession of evidence that the petitioners and others were concerned in the c...
See the full content of this document